 Mystery: April 16, 2008 Issue [#2334] |
  Mystery
This week: Edited by: The Milkman  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
Ever hear the adage, "You can't keep a good writer down"? Well I'm not the best person to punch keys to make sentences but I refuse to be kept without an occasional editorialship of one of my favorite genres...
I hope you brought your notebooks and pens because I'm going to give you some useful information on...
|
| ASIN: B07RKLNKH7 |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 0.99
|
|
You have rights...
You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; the right to the presence of an attorney;and if an attorney can't be afforded one will be appointed prir to questioning
Mystery writers, readers and television and movie watchers have heard these four Miranda warnings thousands of times, but in this editorial for the Mystery Newsletter, I would like to debunk some of their myths and give a brief synopsis of their history.
On June 13th, 1966 the Supreme Court mandated these warnings into law to protect criminal suspects against self-incrimination, a right guaranteed by the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other 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 of the same offense to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived life, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Miranda warnings originated from the precendent-setting court case, Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the slaying of a young woman in the mid-60's. Miranda was taken into custody for the murder and later confessed, in detail, to the killing. During the questioning, detectives didn't tell him that he didn't have to talk to the police, nor did they tell him he could have an attorney with him to aid in questioning process.
When should the police officer utter these warnings? Should your suspect hear them before, during or after the cuffs are slapped on? For you TV an movie buffs, you probably said "all of the above" and you would, almost always, be wrong. By definition an officer is only required by law to utter the warnings before questioning a suspect in police custody, not immediately upon arresting him. The law draws no fine line that determines when a person is in police custody. The rule of thumb is that a person is in police custody when she no longer feels she can leave the immediate area. A person who is in hand cuffs or sitting in a locked room inside a police station is in custody.
Can a suspect initially waive his rights and later change his mind? The answer is yes. At anytime during questioning the suspect can ask for an attorney and at this time questioning must cease until a lawyer is present. This doesn't always happen but the police may not use any statement he may make against him in a court of law,
After has heard and understands his rights granted to him by the fifth amendment, are the police allowed to question him in subsquent sessions withut repeating his rights? There is no definite answer to this question but my research suggested repeating the Miranda warnings at the beginning of each session, including breaks of lunch. It's a good practice for police officers to advise a suspect of her rights every time to avoid problems in court.
Are there times when you wouldn't advise a person of the Miranda warning? The answer is yes. There are certain instances in which a person can be interviewed and interrogated without being in police custody, such as when a suspect initiates the interview.
What kind of statements don't fall under the custody rule of thumb? Incriminating statements made voluntarily and spontaneous or excited utterances. Courts have found that statements made during times of excitement are statements of truth. Lies take time to formulate.
To find out more about when to utter, what is protected and the defintion of police custody stated in the Miranda warnings check your local law enforcement agencies, the web or one of the many books written on the subject.
Until next time... you have the right to leave a comment for this editorial; the right to leave subjects to be discussed in future editions of this newsletter; the right to plug your mystery genre item...
Thanks for reading.
The Milkman and also Mysteriously known as "Moo"
|
| |  | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1215824 by Not Available. |
| |  | The Perp (E)
For the 300 word Daily Flash contest- "Something isn't right here"
#1412715 by Sandals  |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1412647 by Not Available. |
|
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: B07YJZZGW4 |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
Not currently available. |
|
| Since I'm only a guest editor I will not answer any of your previous questions. |
| ASIN: B083RZ37SZ |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
Not currently available. |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
This printed copy is for your personal use only. Reproduction
of this work in any other form is not allowed and does violate its copyright. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
