Justices Ease Rules on Questioning Suspects

[Badgerman]

Source: New York Times -AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
...
The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/26/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Lawyer-Request.html?hp

---

Do we need any further proof that Obama and Holder are just continuations of Bush and Ashcroft in police state philosophy?

This is a horrendous decision, and for this administration to advocate for it was tantamount to defending fascist state police and prosecutorial policies and methods. What next? Will Obama have the AG/DoJ implement waterboarding and okay its use at local levels?

[Mnemosyne]

1. Welcome to DU, Badgerman.

:popcorn:

[Badgerman]

11. Thank you!

[CoffeeCat]

2. A person still doesn't have to say anything...

...they can wait until their attorney arrives.

However, the only people who will understand that they have that right--are people with a great deal of education
and most likely, money.

The vulnerable, the young, the uneducated and the poor will all be screwed over like this. The police will manipulate
them and try to twist as much information as they can out of them---even if the person says that they want to talk
with a lawyer.

The police now have more time to cajole people into screwing themselves over.

This really, really is sad. I wonder why Obama was for this.

The police have so much power. So much incredible power. It's the people who need to be protected.

Why would we give the police even more power over people--especially people who are vulnerable and unaware of their rights.

[Wizard777]

18. One of the ''meager benefits'' was that if the police beat a confession out of you. It was unusable

because you had requested a lawyer. No cop in or out his right mind would try to beat a confession out of someone in the presence of a lawyer. Now the police can beat a confession out of someone. Then further coerce them into going to court unrepresented and pleading guilty. Who's to ever know? The person will go through our legal and penal system without ever having contact with an advocate to say you can't do that.

So yes distrust in the justice system will grow. What is happening in Baltimore Maryland will become a national trend. The People of Baltimore are increasingly distrusting the Police. As a result of that distrust. They will not hesitate to deliver a not guilty verdict even in a Murder trial. The best way to get a Not Guilty verdict is to put a cop on the stand. So far the remedies to this distrust is to give the police a greater ability to cover up police crime. That only deepens the mistrust. So decisions like this will undermine the public trust and this will be evident in escalating Not Guilty verdicts.

[JonLP24]

3. This is a bad decision

I usto hate the idea police were allowed to be deceptive in interrogations, but with the recent stories about torture I'm ok with using deception as an interrogation technique. However, I don't like this idea. Someone requests a lawyer, end of interview.

[BlueJessamine]

4. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, and read his dissent from the bench

Via TalkLeft:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/5/26/112220/964



Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, and read his dissent from the bench:

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."

[JonLP24]

6. Go Stevens!

:bounce:

He is completely right and he must have strong feelings for it as it says it was the first time this term a justice read his dissent aloud.

[BlueJessamine]

10. .....

:fistbump:

[midnight]

29. This is exactly right. How in the world can we think anything

else than diminished reliability and fairness or our justice system.

[Hubert Flottz]

32. "diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness "

Nothing from nothing is nothing...Smoke pot and go to jail...beat a POW to death and get a promotion, an atta-boy and a gubmint pension.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. Ooooooops.............

Posted in the completely wrong place.

Sorry.

As you were..............

[BlueJessamine]

8. The court's conservatives overturned that opinion...

http://www.talkleft.com/wireservice?articleId=51251714&channelId=1180&buyerId=talkleftcom&buid=3042

"The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.

The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and (as we have described) is ultimately unworkable."

Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Scalia said."

:grr:

[Badgerman]

9. Didn't read the article now did you! ;)

[robinlynne]

13. good point. but the OP says they advocated for it. what exactly does that mean?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. It means Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed a legal brief saying:

Although the Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants a right to counsel at certain critical pre-trial stages, the Amendment should not prevent a criminal defendant from waiving that right and answering questions from police following assertion of that right at arraignment. Jackson serves no real purpose and fits poorly with this Court’s recent precedent; although the decision only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions, even that cost outweighs the decision’s meager benefits.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/us-amicus-in-montejo-4-14-09.pdf

[No Elephants]

37. Let's be clear: Kagan filed the brief upon behalf of the U.S. & it said a LOT more than that

[Lone_Star_Dem]

47. The link in my post is the actual brief that was filed. nt

[BlueJessamine]

17. from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5214985/Barack-Obama-administration-seeks-to-change-police-questioning-law.html

President Barack Obama has already provoked controversy by backing the continued imprisonment without trial of enemy combatants in Afghanistan and by limiting the rights of prisoners to challenge evidence used to convict them.

The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.

Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.

However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.

The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be "represented by counsel", but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to "protect the adversary process" in a criminal trial.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".

The government said that suspects have the right to remain silent, and that officers must respect that decision. But it argued that there is no reason a defendant who wants to speak without a lawyer present should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

Critics argue that the 1986 decision is important to protect vulnerable defendants such as the mentally disabled, poor or juveniles who could be easily swayed by the police.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University.

Stephen Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Centre for Human Rights in Atlanta, described the administration's position as "disappointing - no question".

snip

Nineteen former judges and prosecutors – including Larry Thompson, the ex-deputy attorney general, and Williams Sessions, a former FBI director – had urged the Supreme Court to leave the 1986 ruling intact.

[robinlynne]

19. ouch!

[BlueJessamine]

23. from SCOTUS:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-overruled-michigan-v-jackson/

The Court had signaled in late March that it was considering overruling the Jackson decision, a decision designed to assure that the right to a lawyer is not lost during police questioning of a suspect they are holding, resulting in a confession to the crime. The Court ruled there that, once a suspect has claimed the right to a lawyer, any later waiver of that right during questioning would be invalid, unless the suspect initiated communcation with the officers. Among others calling for it to be overruled was U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who argued it was no longer necessary to protect the rights of those in police custody.



"who argued it was no longer necessary to protect the rights of those in police custody?!?!? :wtf:


:banghead:

[No Elephants]

15. The last sentency of the OP seems to say Obama and Holder did have something to do with it, though.

"The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush."

In the article linked in the OP, the above sentence is followed by this:


"The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision ''serves no real purpose'' and offers only ''meager benefits.'' 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."

If they submitted a brief and argued orally, that seems like having something to do with it.

[sandnsea]

7. A brief from Elena Kagan

who wasn't chosen for the Supreme Court, thank goodness. She said it "serves no real purpose" and offers "meager benefits". Obviously she doesn't know what it's like to be questioned for hours on end, without "enhanced techniques".

[No Elephants]

43. Appointing Kagan as Solicitor General is almost as bad, though she is not likely

to serve as long as a SCOTUS Justice. On the other hand, on the SCOTUS, she would be only one of 9 votes, while she is the only Solicitor General we have.

[Iowa]

12. Deleted

[robinlynne]

14. I have to go back to this thought:

I still think (although they finally destroyed the ballots) that we need to overturn the 2004 election, by really counting the votes. The purpose this would serve is to undo all of Bush's appointees and rulings. I know it is too late now, but I have said this for years. It would have been our best strategy. In my view, Alito and Roberts are illegitimately sitting on the Supreme Court.
There is of course, the little problem of the Senate....

[Wizard777]

20. They could adopt a Maryland ruling in our Governors race.

The challenge came from the losing Republican Candidate Ellen Saurbrey. The Maryland Supreme Court basically ruled that once the Governor elect is sworn in. How he became the governor elect is a moot point. The election is over and he is now the elected Governor.

[robinlynne]

21. barbara Boxer was the only Senator who stood up against the ohio vote count in 2004.

The entire black caucus walked out of congress in 2000 and stood up again in 2004. the problem really was the Senate. He could not have been sworn in except for the Senates' acceptance of the vote counts.

[No Elephants]

42. The Solicitor General of the US appointed by Obama argued this case, though. But, if we're going

back, let's go back to 2000.

[Zorra]

22. Kucinich for President in 2012!

A genuine voice for liberty, justice, and democracy.

[L0oniX]

26. +1

[ProgressIn2008]

36. +2 (though the teevee tells me he's unelectable, probably because he won't get a GQ cover)

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

24. Activist Judges

After this ruling, do you think the repubs will still complain about "activist judges"?

I don't think so. These so-called conservative justices are very good at overturning precedent.

[L0oniX]

25. They can ask questions all they want. I am not going to say anything unless I speak with a lawyer.

What are they going to do ...water board me?

[Badgerman]

33. The point is that you will NOT see a lawyer, until...

the time period prescribed by law for detention has passed and you are released, or you are charged. If you are charged and cannot afford counsel you will have to wait until arraignment. So you see they can 'soften' you up for a fairly long time, remain quiet yes, but you ain't getting any calls or lawyers.

[No Elephants]

40. Of course not. Tortture is against the laws of the United States, which also ensure prosecution.

[depakid]

27. I will will say that the justice department has been a huge disappointment

in many more ways than one.

Could be Obama telegraphed some of this when he came out for expanding the death penalty to cases other than 1st degree murder. Other thought it to be political posturing- me I wasn't so sure (and up to now, the evidence shows that hunch was correct).

[midnight]

28. For those that are ok with this decision don't read

Sen. Feingold's May 21,2009 letter to our president asking him to reconsider unconstitutional actions. For those that care about the rule of law, google Sen. Feingold's letter.

[Badgerman]

30. Here's the LINK...he put Obama on notice

http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold05252009.html

[BlueJessamine]

31. Feingold Calls on President-Elect to Take "Concrete Steps' to Restore Rule of Law

Feingold Calls on President-Elect to Take "Concrete Steps' to Restore Rule of Law
Author: Sen. Russ Feingold's office
Published on Dec 12, 2008 - 6:51:31 AM

http://yubanet.com/usa/Feingold-Calls-on-President-Elect-to-Take-Concrete-Steps-to-Restore-Rule-of-Law.php

Washington, D.C. Dec. 10, 2008 - U.S. Senator Russ Feingold is urging President-elect Barack Obama to take "concrete steps" to restore the rule of law after the eight-year assault by the Bush Administration on the Constitution. In a letter to the President-elect, Feingold offered recommendations for action in four key areas - the separation of powers, excessive government secrecy, detention and interrogation policy, and domestic surveillance and privacy. In addition to outlining specific actions the new administration should take, Feingold called on the new president to clearly and unequivocally renounce President Bush's extreme claims of executive authority. In the letter, Feingold suggested to the President-elect that mentioning the issue during his inaugural address would "affirm to the nation, and the world, that respect for the rule of law has returned to the Oval Office."

"In light of this recent history, I believe that one of the most important things that you can do as President is to take concrete steps to restore the rule of law in this country - that is, to return to the White House respect for an appropriate separation and balance of powers among the branches, for the President's important but not paramount place in our constitutional system of government, for the laws that Congress writes and the importance of its oversight functions, and for the judiciary's crucial role in interpreting the law." Feingold wrote. "As I know you recognize, we can protect our national security - in fact, we can do it more effectively - without trampling on the rights of Americans or the rule of law."

In September, Feingold chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee entitled "Restoring the Rule of Law." The hearing featured testimony and recommendations from about forty historians, law professors and advocacy organizations, including the head of President-elect Obama's transition team, John Podesta. Feingold provided a copy of the written record of the hearing to the President-elect. The recommendations include:

· Closing the facility at Guantanamo Bay - a step Obama has supported

· Banning torture and establishing a single, government-wide standard of humane detainee treatment

· Conducting a comprehensive review of Office of Legal Counsel opinions and repudiating or revising those that overstate executive authority

* Supporting significant legislative changes to the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act

* Cooperating with congressional oversight, including providing full information to intelligence committees

* Establishing presumptions of openness and disclosure in making decisions on the classification of information and responding to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

A copy of the letter is available at http://feingold.senate.gov/pdf/ltr_obama_121008.pdf

[IndianaGreen]

34. Scalia has spoken openly of reversing the Miranda decision

Obama fumbles the ball by siding with the conservative activists on the federal bench.

[Badgerman]

35. There are times when I truly believe Scalia is some...

creature from the Da Vinci code, the leader of Opus Dei, or at the very least the Head Inquistor reborn of the Spanish Inquisition!

[No Elephants]

38. Yes, but this time, he ruled exactly as the Democrats

asked him to rule. Things like this are making me lose hope for my country, regardless of who gets into power. And that is ironic, considering.

[No Elephants]

41. More than a fumble and he sides with Bush Cheney, not only Scalia & Co.

[saigon68]

39. Love it

Your quote

"Obama and Holder are just continuations of Bush and Ashcroft"

No kidding ----they are also continuing a criminal War for Oil (starting a New War for whatever)

And have no intention of prosecuting murderers, thugs and criminals.

[No Elephants]

44. Watch this....

"The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to argue for the Government of the United States in front of the Supreme Court of the United States whenever the government is party to a case. Currently, the Solicitor General is Elena Kagan, who was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 19, 2009." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States

Now this:

Solicitor General nomination
On January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.<6> Before this appointment she had limited courtroom experience. She has never argued a case at trial,<7> and has not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr had no previous appellate experience at the Supreme Court, though Starr served as a Circuit Court Judge prior to acting as Solicitor General and Bork briefly served as Attorney General prior to his appointment as Solicitor General.<8>
At her confirmation hearing, Kagan also drew criticism for arguing that battlefield law, including indefinite detention without a trial, could apply outside of traditional battlefields.<10>

<snip>

Kagan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009 by a vote of 61 to 31.<11>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan


Yet another Obama appointee/Clinton re-tread betrays progressives. And the Democrats in the Senate probably confirmed without exception or serious examination.

Please donate to the ACLU. It's about all we have left.

[Vidar]

45. Reaffirming our police state.

[alarimer]

46. I am really starting to hate Obama.

So far he pretty much sucks with his backing of Bush policies and decisions when it comes to civil right. What a fucking turncoat.