-
RICHARD POSNER ON MIRANDA
Posted on September 3rd, 2010 2 commentsThanks to television and the movies the myths about the Miranda rights are infinite. If I had a dollar for every time a client told me that their case must be dismissed because they were not given their Miranda rights I’d be a very rich man.
Of course that is not true. The Miranda rights mean what they say “Everything you say may be used against you . . . But if they don’t plan to use any statement you make they don’t have to give you the Miranda rights.
Furthermore the Miranda rights only apply to statements made while you are in custody as a result of interrogation. Thus if your not in custody, i.e. if you are free to leave, or if you make the statement freely without being asked the statement can be used against you even if you are not given the Miranda rights. Statements made despite the lack of being given the Miranda rights can also be used in cross examination.
And I can assure you that any police officer with half of a brain can find some way to make it look like a statement is given either while the person is not in custody of not as a result of interrogation.
An example occurred in the prosecution of Michael Slaight for receiving pornography on his computer. But the Seventh Circuit, in a decision written by Judge Richard Posner, saw through it and reversed the conviction.
Through viewing internet cites used by viewers of child pornography state and federal agents found out that Slaight received child pornography in interstate commerce, a violation of Federal law. they had enough information to obtain a search warrant for his house and his computer. In fact they had enough information to arrest him but they didn’t because they wanted him to give a statement while he was out of custody.
They went to his house. When he didn’t answer the door, nine officers knocked it down. They ordered him to get dressed. They asked him to voluntarily come to the police station. Knowing that he didn’t have a car they offered to let him drive himself to the station. Once at the station, two officers interrogated him in a small room. Repeatedly, they told him he could leave at any time. but he would have had to trip over an officer to get out of the interrogation room and since they already had enough information to arrest him he did not believe they would let him go. At the end of the interrogation they read him his Miranda rights and arrested him.
In the end Judge Posner’s decision found that an average person in Slaight’s position would not feel free to leave due to the show of force at his home, the protracted questioning of him in the claustrophobic setting of the police station’s Lilliputian interview room, and the more than likelihood that he would be formally placed under arrest if he tried to leave because the government already had so much evidence against him.
2 Responses to “RICHARD POSNER ON MIRANDA”
-
Mr. Shapiro,
It’s good that you have written about this case. I should think that in addition to the important points you have made regarding Miranda, the misconduct on the part of federal and state law enforcement, as well as the AUSA, is cause for concern and may warrant discipline. Through deceit and fraud on the court, law enforcement unnecessarily and illegally attempted to bolster the case. As a consequence, and as it should be, it appears that a really bad guy gets a pass. If this is the sole consequence for the misconduct, I think that the DOJ has failed in supervision. In summary, heads should roll.I am not a lawyer, but as a sort of weird hobbyist, I have followed many cases argued to the 7th Circuit. Up until the beginning of 2010, the 7th Circuit published civil briefs, oral arguments and opinions and I, as a citizen, could understand both arguments from the briefs. Now, briefs are only available through the costly and very poor PACER system.
It’s time for more open and freely accessible information from the Judicial branch.
I like your blog.
-
I agree, PACER is difficult to use and unnecessary. Unless you use it extensively it is not that expensive. I believe it is eight cents a page. I doubt the government makes an awful lot of money off of it and considering how difficult it is to use it would make more sense to abolish PACER and put the documents on the web. I suspect there is very little profit to the government after it pays the additional costs incurred in collecting payments and segregating it from the rest of the web.
Seventh Circuit opinions are available for no charge either through the Seventh Circuit’s web page or Findlaw.com.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it.
Leave a Reply
-




Recent Comments