Professor Colin Miller has this useful reminder of the effects from Berghuis v. Thompkins.
Say Anything?: Jeopardy Question About New Miranda Opinion Gets It Almost Completely Correct
Last night’s episode of Jeopardy! featured the category "A Murder Investigation," with The Closer’s Kyra Sedgwick reading the clues. The $1000 clue in the category was:
New York Times has this good short piece about false confessions.
New research shows how people who were apparently uninvolved in a crime could provide such a detailed account of what occurred, allowing prosecutors to claim that only the defendant could have committed the crime.
An article by Professor Garrett draws on trial transcripts, recorded confessions and other background materials to show how incriminating facts got into those confessions — by police introducing important facts about the case, whether intentionally or unintentionally, during the interrogation.
Carmen Miranda was a celebrated and successful actress from the 1940’s. She died 5 August 1955. And no she wasn’t auditioning to be co-counsel for LTC Lakin.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda died on 31 January 1976, in prison. Although his notable case resulted in a new trial he was reconvicted. He died in a knife fight.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona has not died yet, or has it, or will it soon. The American Constitution Society has a piece, Examining Miranda’s Future.
Thanks to OpinoJuris for pointing us to the 11th Circuit decision in United States v. Frank. You will recollect that CAAF has found that the CP related statutes don’t apply overseas. Here is part of the OJ summary.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction finding that (1) Miranda warnings were unnecessary; (2) the statute applied extraterritorially; and (3) the “purchase” of a child may occur through payment directly to the child, rather than a third party.
The Court found that generally, “statements obtained by foreign officers conducting interrogations in their own nations have been held admissible despite a failure to give Miranda warnings to the accused.” The reasoning behind this rule is that the exclusion of evidence by an American court has little to no deterrent effect on foreign police practices. That is, our “Constitution cannot compel such specific, affirmative action by foreign sovereigns.” Moreover, the joint venture exception does not apply because American officials did not know of Frank’s presence in Cambodia until after he was arrested and did not participate in Frank’s detention or interrogation.
The court has decided Maryland v. Shatzer (background documents on SCOTUSWiki here ) and also Florida v. Powell (background documents on SCOTUSWiki here). Both cases relate to “Miranda” rights and confessions. In Powell, the issue was how much detail must go into a “Miranda” warning in order to be sufficient, in Shatzer the court addresses the break in custody situation.
In Powell the issue was whether the rights advice given properly conveyed to the suspect that he had the right to counsel present during questioning and not just before being questioned. After an interesting discussion showing how ambiguous the language used was, the court found the appellant was adequately advised. Interestingly, the court noted that:
The standard warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are exemplary. They provide, in relevant part: “You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning.” Ibid., n. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). This advice is admirably informative, but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda’s requirements. Different words were used in the advice Powell received, but they communicated the same essential message.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog