• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
"The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present"

"The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present."




Wow, just go's to show you never trust a politician (or their staff) with high approval ratings.

This is quite sad, hope it dosent go through.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
i agree.

but i do think this is a repost. seems i read it before here.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,358
25,096
136
I won't defend it, but I'm not exactly up in arms about it either. It's not like any defendants are forced to answer any questions without their lawyer present, it just makes it possible for the police to ask them.

Seems like it opens up the possibility for police to abuse people who are unaware of their rights, and I don't like that. It's not really an OMGPOLICESTATE thing though.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
This is interesting. The Miranda warnings say that a person has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney who may be present during questioning. Doubt the decision of Michigan vs Jackson will be overturned but I'm assuming if it were that the accused would still have the right to remain silent until an attorney arrived.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
Originally posted by: waggy
i agree.

but i do think this is a repost. seems i read it before here.
The article was from yesterday and I don't remember seeing it, but if it is my apologies.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: OCguy
Wow that is awful.........


Anyone care to defend this?
Are you implying there is NO defense??
None. As eskimo pointed out, this would hurt the uneducated/poor/ESL people more than anyone else.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Funny as many say if someone wants to talk let them. All they are saying is that a person does not have to talk but if they so choose so they can.

"The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions."

They are not asking that the police limit a lawyer or anything. But if the person decides to talk they can use what they say.

But I also agree that those less educated/ESL/etc... would be hurt the most from this. That and police many times trick and/or out right lie to people.
With that said I rather err on the side of caution and not change it. If you ask for a lawyer you should stop asking questions until said lawyer gets there.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
4
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: OCguy
Wow that is awful.........


Anyone care to defend this?
Are you implying there is NO defense??
None. As eskimo pointed out, this would hurt the uneducated/poor/ESL people more than anyone else.
Wait, I thought of a defense. This would kill the shitty crime show twists when the killer's confession is thrown out because he didn't have his lawyer!!



To be completely honest, I don't like this at all.
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Originally posted by: waggy
i agree.

but i do think this is a repost. seems i read it before here.
I think there was a AP story a couple days ago, it was on HuffPo.

This looks like the earliest article regarding the issue at hand, also has a link to the brief filed by the Justice Dept.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Its somewhat of a hairsplitting argument, especially since the Miranda warnings proceed everything, but my position is to oppose Obama on this because it somewhat grants the police a license to badger and harass anyone even suspected of a crime. Its a very slippery slope argument that almost invites sleep deprivation as a tactic. And because it will change many other legal precedents, its another slippery slope.

Hopefully the court will refuse to hear the case or decide against granting this Obama position.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
I agree with Obama. The rights granted to use through the Constitution should be whole-heartily be annulled. Change we can believe in!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,358
25,096
136
Originally posted by: Hacp
I agree with Obama. The rights granted to use through the Constitution should be whole-heartily be annulled. Change we can believe in!
Please describe what right is being annulled, be specific.
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
This is sick and disturbing. If Obama starts heading down this road, he won't be seeing my vote again.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Hacp
I agree with Obama. The rights granted to use through the Constitution should be whole-heartily be annulled. Change we can believe in!
Please describe what right is being annulled, be specific.
It isn't an annulment, but it is troubling and not to be written off.

Scenario which I'm sure will happen.

Police: You talk to us or you are going to be in real trouble. Talk now to keep your teeth.

Suspect: Er, ok just don't hurt me.

Police: Good boy.


Later-
Police: Suspect decided he wanted to talk to us without an attorney.

Attorney to client: You're screwed.


Now if you don't think this can happen, then I suggest you can forget about warrantless wiretaps. You can trust the government after all.


Really bad idea.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Hacp
I agree with Obama. The rights granted to use through the Constitution should be whole-heartily be annulled. Change we can believe in!
Please describe what right is being annulled, be specific.
It isn't an annulment, but it is troubling and not to be written off.

Scenario which I'm sure will happen.

Police: You talk to us or you are going to be in real trouble. Talk now to keep your teeth.

Suspect: Er, ok just don't hurt me.

Police: Good boy.


Later-
Police: Suspect decided he wanted to talk to us without an attorney.

Attorney to client: You're screwed.


Now if you don't think this can happen, then I suggest you can forget about warrantless wiretaps. You can trust the government after all.


Really bad idea.
I am very much against this new policy, but this scenario already happens.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,358
25,096
136
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Please describe what right is being annulled, be specific.
It isn't an annulment, but it is troubling and not to be written off.

Scenario which I'm sure will happen.

Police: You talk to us or you are going to be in real trouble. Talk now to keep your teeth.

Suspect: Er, ok just don't hurt me.

Police: Good boy.


Later-
Police: Suspect decided he wanted to talk to us without an attorney.

Attorney to client: You're screwed.


Now if you don't think this can happen, then I suggest you can forget about warrantless wiretaps. You can trust the government after all.


Really bad idea.
Did you read my other post in this thread? I already said I opposed this.

As already stated though, this stuff happens even without this change. If police officers are willing to threaten suspects with physical violence (which everyone knows is illegal) what would make you think they would be worried about being accused of asking them a question without their lawyer present?

This is something I dislike as a matter of course, because I am extremely distrustful of all police power. That being said, I hardly consider this a large infringement of our constitutional rights.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Please describe what right is being annulled, be specific.
It isn't an annulment, but it is troubling and not to be written off.

Scenario which I'm sure will happen.

Police: You talk to us or you are going to be in real trouble. Talk now to keep your teeth.

Suspect: Er, ok just don't hurt me.

Police: Good boy.


Later-
Police: Suspect decided he wanted to talk to us without an attorney.

Attorney to client: You're screwed.


Now if you don't think this can happen, then I suggest you can forget about warrantless wiretaps. You can trust the government after all.


Really bad idea.
Did you read my other post in this thread? I already said I opposed this.

As already stated though, this stuff happens even without this change. If police officers are willing to threaten suspects with physical violence (which everyone knows is illegal) what would make you think they would be worried about being accused of asking them a question without their lawyer present?

This is something I dislike as a matter of course, because I am extremely distrustful of all police power. That being said, I hardly consider this a large infringement of our constitutional rights.
Then why seek the change?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
This is interesting. The Miranda warnings say that a person has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney who may be present during questioning. Doubt the decision of Michigan vs Jackson will be overturned but I'm assuming if it were that the accused would still have the right to remain silent until an attorney arrived.
Yes, the brief filed doesn't attempt to impinge that right. What this would overturn is waiver of 6th amendment rights after an arraignment in which the person stated the desire of right to counsel. Currently, the following applies:

From the brief:

The Jackson Court decided that ?the same rule applies
to a defendant who has been formally charged with
a crime and who has requested appointment of counsel at
his arraignment,? because ?the reasons for prohibiting
the interrogation of an uncounseled prisoner who has
asked for the help of a lawyer are even stronger after he
has been formally charged with an offense than before.?
475 U.S. at 626, 631. Giving ?a broad, rather than a narrow,
interpretation to a defendant?s request for counsel,?
the Court ?presume[d]? that a defendant who requests a
lawyer at his arraignment ?requests the lawyer?s services
at every critical stage of the prosecution,? including
police interrogation. Id. at 633. As a result, even if a
defendant responds to police questioning by choosing to
speak with police, expressly waives his Sixth Amendment
right to counsel, and provides a voluntary confession to
the charged crime, Jackson renders that confession inadmissible
as substantive evidence at his trial. Id. at 635;
Harvey, 494 U.S. at 345.
They go on to argue that Michigan v. Jackson is unnecessary given the protections of the 6th Amendment and protections against coercion.

I can see both sides of the argument here. On one hand, someone could have requested a lawyer at an arraignment, then decides to confess to police and subsequently the confession could be thrown out. No doubt that's frustrating to those doing honest police work, not to mention the waste of public services when that happens (the time the police and courts may have invested = our tax dollars). On the other hand, this ruling provides potections that give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, which seems to be one of the foundations of a fair legal system, and a foundation of ours, much like innocent before proven guilty.

Michigan v. Jackson might be a pain in the side of the police and judicial system but it's something they should just deal with. Police already have enough power. They don't need more.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY