Graystar
Member
Like I said...you're not understanding my point.
Like I said...
Miranda – You probably don’t know what you’re talking about!
- Thread starter Graystar
- Start date
- Status
English John
Member
I think I answerd your point:
"Again, from the card: "Now that I have advised you of your rights are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney?" If you say yes, if you talk to me VOLUNTARILY, without duress, you voluntarily waived your rights, it is not compelled testimony and IS admissable. You're right, I don't have a problem with that. "
The courts have, and routinely do, admit these statements as voluntary after Miarand rights were advised and waived. You apparently don't like that. Welcome to the real world.
'Nuff said.
"Again, from the card: "Now that I have advised you of your rights are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney?" If you say yes, if you talk to me VOLUNTARILY, without duress, you voluntarily waived your rights, it is not compelled testimony and IS admissable. You're right, I don't have a problem with that. "
The courts have, and routinely do, admit these statements as voluntary after Miarand rights were advised and waived. You apparently don't like that. Welcome to the real world.
'Nuff said.
Graystar
Member
No, you completely missed the point.
The issue is not whether a particular type of testimony is considered admissible. The issue if that of the consideration itself. The point I made is that the Miranda ruling has changed that consideration in the wrong direction. It has done so by placing an element of volunteerism upon an involuntary act.
I am not saying that any confession made after Miranda warning is compelled. Neither am I saying that any confession made before a Miranda warning is invalid. The only thing I am saying is that when a question is raised about the validity of a confession that the fact, of whether or not a Miranda warning was given, has absolutely nothing to do with the determination. This is so because a claim of involuntarily action is outside the scope of the voluntary nature of the Miranda warning.
However, this is not what happens in today’s courts. When someone claims to have been compelled, the first thing the court asks is if a Miranda warning was given! The first thing cops claim is that the accused knew his rights. Yeah right! Like knowing my rights will somehow save me from being forced to speak! It is the very nature of compelled testimony to be involuntary. That’s why it’s called “compelled.†The issue of Miranda has no place in a claim of compelled testimony.
English John
Member
I agree with MOST of what you say...........
"The issue is not whether a particular type of testimony is considered admissible. The issue if that of the consideration itself. The point I made is that the Miranda ruling has changed that consideration in the wrong direction. It has done so by placing an element of volunteerism upon an involuntary act."
Yes, but a suspect CAN freely volunteer testimony AFTER Miranda. That is not compelled testimony (1. Why didn't he just keep his mouth shut? 2. Notice I said freely given.)
"I am not saying that any confession made after Miranda warning is compelled. Neither am I saying that any confession made before a Miranda warning is invalid. The only thing I am saying is that when a question is raised about the validity of a confession that the fact, of whether or not a Miranda warning was given, has absolutely nothing to do with the determination. This is so because a claim of involuntarily action is outside the scope of the voluntary nature of the Miranda warning."
OK, if the claim is being made that the testimony being offered was obtained from compulsion (as I stated many posts age, if the LEO is willing to beat a confession from a suspect then the Miranda rights, although given, really don't mean much). (But that LEO puts his badge, financial future, and freedom on the line. Judges really don't like perjury.)
"However, this is not what happens in today’s courts. When someone claims to have been compelled, the first thing the court asks is if a Miranda warning was given! The first thing cops claim is that the accused knew his rights. Yeah right! Like knowing my rights will somehow save me from being forced to speak! It is the very nature of compelled testimony to be involuntary. That’s why it’s called “compelled.†The issue of Miranda has no place in a claim of compelled testimony." YES
Right, but now it's time for the suspect, or his attorney, to say: This LEO read me my rights so I could understand them, and then abused my right to remain silent by FORCING me to speak (using one of the ILLEGAL means we discussed above). If the judge is on the ball, it's time for a Huntley hearing on the evidence. Whoever loses is in big trouble. Your earlier posts seemed to imply that ANY testimony given after Miranda must have been compelled, but now that you have fine-tuned your argument it takes on a different tone. It also points up 2 things: 1, The suspect, or his attorney, had better speak up at arraignment and claim that any testimony was compelled and therefore is NOW inadmissable. This happens a lot: especially if the attorney showed up after the interrogation, he will claim that his client was not advised of his rights, didn't understand them, and did not have benefit of counsel (even though the waiver states differently). Who should the judge believe (especially if it's not the first time he has seen this tactic)? Time for a hearing? It's kind of like the speeding trial: Your honor, I may have exceeded the speed limit but I was doing only 59 MPH, not the 75 MPH that this officer states. Who should the judge believe? Is the LEO "testilieing?" I'm glad I'm not a judge, or a suspect.
"The issue is not whether a particular type of testimony is considered admissible. The issue if that of the consideration itself. The point I made is that the Miranda ruling has changed that consideration in the wrong direction. It has done so by placing an element of volunteerism upon an involuntary act."
Yes, but a suspect CAN freely volunteer testimony AFTER Miranda. That is not compelled testimony (1. Why didn't he just keep his mouth shut? 2. Notice I said freely given.)
"I am not saying that any confession made after Miranda warning is compelled. Neither am I saying that any confession made before a Miranda warning is invalid. The only thing I am saying is that when a question is raised about the validity of a confession that the fact, of whether or not a Miranda warning was given, has absolutely nothing to do with the determination. This is so because a claim of involuntarily action is outside the scope of the voluntary nature of the Miranda warning."
OK, if the claim is being made that the testimony being offered was obtained from compulsion (as I stated many posts age, if the LEO is willing to beat a confession from a suspect then the Miranda rights, although given, really don't mean much). (But that LEO puts his badge, financial future, and freedom on the line. Judges really don't like perjury.)
"However, this is not what happens in today’s courts. When someone claims to have been compelled, the first thing the court asks is if a Miranda warning was given! The first thing cops claim is that the accused knew his rights. Yeah right! Like knowing my rights will somehow save me from being forced to speak! It is the very nature of compelled testimony to be involuntary. That’s why it’s called “compelled.†The issue of Miranda has no place in a claim of compelled testimony." YES
Right, but now it's time for the suspect, or his attorney, to say: This LEO read me my rights so I could understand them, and then abused my right to remain silent by FORCING me to speak (using one of the ILLEGAL means we discussed above). If the judge is on the ball, it's time for a Huntley hearing on the evidence. Whoever loses is in big trouble. Your earlier posts seemed to imply that ANY testimony given after Miranda must have been compelled, but now that you have fine-tuned your argument it takes on a different tone. It also points up 2 things: 1, The suspect, or his attorney, had better speak up at arraignment and claim that any testimony was compelled and therefore is NOW inadmissable. This happens a lot: especially if the attorney showed up after the interrogation, he will claim that his client was not advised of his rights, didn't understand them, and did not have benefit of counsel (even though the waiver states differently). Who should the judge believe (especially if it's not the first time he has seen this tactic)? Time for a hearing? It's kind of like the speeding trial: Your honor, I may have exceeded the speed limit but I was doing only 59 MPH, not the 75 MPH that this officer states. Who should the judge believe? Is the LEO "testilieing?" I'm glad I'm not a judge, or a suspect.
pittspilot
Member
I would point out the logical fallacy here, but why bother. You are the type who is rarely right, and never wrong. It will stunt your intelectual growth until you can see past that barrier. And you will forever wonder why no one EVER gets your point, while the proof stares you in the face.
Graystar
Member
And you're a person that can't understand what he reads. Did you not see English John's post? I was finally able to convey my meaning and he understood and agreed. So you've made a statement that is wrong.
Like I said...
pittspilot
Member
I don't know why I am bothering, but.
Your last few posts.
Yep, seems that you think that you are perfectly well understood. Then again, might be my reading comprehension.
You should try reading your posts before making an assertion. I have been doing you the favor, and have only received insults in return. You know, lack of capacity and all that.
Your last few posts.
Yep, seems that you think that you are perfectly well understood. Then again, might be my reading comprehension.
You should try reading your posts before making an assertion. I have been doing you the favor, and have only received insults in return. You know, lack of capacity and all that.
Graystar
Member
And what of his last post. Seems like you prefer to ignore it, as it doesn't support your position.
- Status
