Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His entire case could be thrown out because of procedure.
Failure to Mirandize only means that they can't use whatever he says to them against him. It doesn't change the facts of the case not associated with what he has said nor any evidence taken prior to his arrest. So, no, this won't get the case thrown out.
Miranda warning only informs a person of their rights...This person has been in the US since childhood.
Not saying the miranda warning does not mean Dzhokhar is not entitiled to constitutional protections. He doesnt have to answer any questions...He can simply claim his 5th amendment right.
Failure to Mirandize only means that they can't use whatever he says to them against him. It doesn't change the facts of the case not associated with what he has said nor any evidence taken prior to his arrest. So, no, this won't get the case thrown out.
It is not a comeback; it is a fact. The people who are agonizing/complaining over this on this forum are not liberals; they are conservatives. Take the emotions out of it and read for yourself.
Patriot Act = violate constitutional rights. Miranda was absolutely needed. Search warrants were needed for all the dwellings they broke into. The military can't be used for criminal pursuit per Posse Comitatus. What do you call a lock down if not marshall law? Will these procedures become accepted by the people?
Marshall law? Is that what they had in Tombstone under Earp?
It is a "public safety exception" which also allows the government to question a suspect and the use the statements in court. Sounds like the epitome of unconstitutional to me.
Me too. The 5th Amendment is rather clear.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Failure to Mirandize will not get a case thrown out if the conviction is not based on what the defendant said. What part of that is the guy in the video disagreeing with?
Patriot Act = violate constitutional rights. Miranda was absolutely needed. Search warrants were needed for all the dwellings they broke into. The military can't be used for criminal pursuit per Posse Comitatus. What do you call a lock down if not marshall law? Will these procedures become accepted by the people?
You are mixing up your constitutional amendments. Search warrants is from the 4th Amendment while Miranda rights are derived from the 5th Amendment.
Moreover, warrants aren't required if there is probable cause -- the reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that the person is linked to the crime with a degree of certainty.
In this case, which involved terrorism and the likelihood that the suspects would use bombs again, the probable cause exception would withstand challenge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
