I may not know much about Miranda but I do know that at some point in time Miranda is required. There is that tipping point. Whether it be when the officers put you in hand cuffs and put you in the police car. Or put you in that small interrogation room. Or when countless interrogation tactics are used. There is a tipping point and It differs from court room to court room. I this case Miranda was never in question. When it should have been. Because the state on appeal sure used Miranda against my brother as if it was brought up in the evidentiary hearing. In which it was not. How would you react if an officer told you repeatedly for 3 hours that they had some sort of evidence against you and made it a point to tell you that they know you did it when you said otherwise. And no body would believe you if you said you didn't do it. How many hours dose it take for Miranda to kick in.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
You're saying the same things over and over. I don't think anybody here can be of further help to you.
army judge
Super Moderator
Miranda reading is ONLY required (IF and only IF the finger of suspicion points at the suspect).
That said, this isn't 1970.
I suspect every sane, lucid adult (and many teenagers and children) know enough NOT to blab or converse with the inquisitor(s).
That can be pappy, mammy, auntie, uncle, teacher, police officer friendly, FBI agent Sammy, or the person in a position of power.
Having represented many infamous, notorious criminals in the past; serial offenders even know NOT to talk to BOSSMAN.
That said, this isn't 1970.
I suspect every sane, lucid adult (and many teenagers and children) know enough NOT to blab or converse with the inquisitor(s).
That can be pappy, mammy, auntie, uncle, teacher, police officer friendly, FBI agent Sammy, or the person in a position of power.
Having represented many infamous, notorious criminals in the past; serial offenders even know NOT to talk to BOSSMAN.
army judge
Super Moderator
Even the dumbest criminals on the planet KNOW enough NOT to speak with the police.
There are always what I term, "the unbelievably stupid", most of whom know NOT to talk to any LEO.
Life is full of choices, always choose wisely, lest you'll suffer unbearably.
If one CHOOSES to dance to the Orchestra of Crime, one knows he/she can politely decline to speak to any police officer, FBI agent, sheriff's deputy, or any other law enforcement personnel, including the jail turnkey, or jailer deputy.
Watch an episode or two of
Watch The First 48 Full Episodes, Video & More | A&E
and an idiot learns the magic phrase: I WANT A LAWYER.
The police officer, deputy, other law enforcement official responds, "Okay, you want a lawyer. I can't speak with you any longer, good luck."
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
As I explained already, Miranda warnings are required if the suspect is (1) in custody and (2) being subjected to interrogation. If a suspect is being subjected to custodial interrogation and has not been read Miranda warnings, then anything said by the suspect may be inadmissible as evidence. Other than that, Miranda warnings are not required, and beyond that, I'm not going to engage in a debate about a situation in which I know no relevant facts (you didn't even provide facts in response to my prior thread that prompted you to do so).
Zigner
Well-Known Member
If one wants evidence excluded at trial, one would have to object to the evidence being admitted at that time. A failure to object would mean that its admission cannot be appealed.
Yes you did ask to provide facts. I had to ask my brother if it was alright. So from the start. 911 was called on my brother. The responding officer was told by the girlfriend that my brother was wanted for questioning and to call detective. My brother asked if he could leave, the officer said no wait here until the detective shows up to straighten things out. When the detective shows up the detective has the officer put my brother in hand cuffs and immediately after my brother is frog marched to the police squad car and put into the back seat. The detective takes his car back to the sub station while the police officer and my brother drive in the polices car. When my brother and the rest get to the substation the hand cuffs are taken off and my brother is put into a small interrogation room. The detective makes my brother wait a few minutes when the the detective dose show up the first words out of his mouth are that there's DNA evidence. And some microscopic evidence. My brother denies this. So the detective acted like he didn't hear and said ' I'm just trying to find out why you did this. To make a long story short the detective used every interrogation tactic in Miranda except the good cop bad cop and physical. The detective also promised my brother that he wouldn't get into trouble if he said it was an accident. My brother would not be spending more than 3 months in jail. Of course this was coupled with the detective saying no one would believe him and he'd be in more trouble if he didn't fess up. After the detective gave my brother the story to write down as an accident my brother was taken to jail. All this is on audio video and lasted 3 hours. What was brought up by the PD was a fourth amendment violation for the promise. When asked by the court if my PD was arguing Miranda, he said no. During the evidentiary hearing the only thing played at the trial was 30 seconds of the 3 hour video and the detective said that I met him at the police station. And bam the statement became voluntary. On appeal the state used Miranda against my brother Using totality of circumstances and he was there voluntarily because he went there on his own.... Is that good? Im not good at explaining this in a legalese language
One had a public defender who didn't object to much. Which screwed one up. Courts don't respond to ineffective assistance of counsel too often. Not fairly at least.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Please make sure to let your brother's attorney know about all of this.
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
Not sure what "every interrogation tactic in Miranda" means, but as you've described it, whatever your brother said could have been excluded from evidence if a proper objection were made.
That doesn't make any sense, but lies and false promises are not objectionable.
Sounds like your brother may have received ineffective assistance of counsel.
You didn't tell us what he was convicted of or when the conviction occurred, but if an appeal already happened, then a petition for post-conviction relief is the only option.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
By who?
And why?
Questioning for what?
And why would she say something like that?
Is she the one that called 911?
Why?
Which was the exact moment that your brother should have said "I want a lawyer" and kept repeating it until he got one.
You?
I thought this was about your brother.
No, it's bad. If the lie wasn't addressed at trial it can't be included in the appeal.
That ^^^.
I was quoting the detective when I said ( I )
I was telling you what my brother gave me and forgot to change an ( I ) here and there
My brother was
Convicted locked up 2006 sentenced march 2008. And yes he's been through the appeals process. Which is why I'm going to try to argue actual innocence for him or with him. And as far as charges... He's got one of those. Which is why if I could afford an attorney or private investigater I'd have already tryed to get a statement recantation. But I cant that's why in my initial question I asked if the state could purger their own witness and Taint the testimony of the witness if the state threatened the witness and asked questions in a leading manner and asked questions in way that the states own expert medical witness said not to or it would taint the testimony. I'm probably going to lead with this one. The next one will be the Williams rule. The witness got on the stand and the testimony given indicated that no crime was committed. So much so that on the record the judge had to ask ' I didn't hear where there was a crime committed' that's why the Williams rule add on was dismissed after it had been used against my brother. For no evidence. But the error was never corrected at the trial. Then I was going to go with the Miranda violation.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
I can't address any of those points because you keep ignoring the questions.
Who accused him?
Of what?
Who was the witness?
What crime was he convicted of? Name that crime?
Argue it where?
In court?
If you expect to argue this in court it isn't likely to happen without money for an attorney.
Unless you can get an attorney to work for free which is highly unlikely.
In all the time you've been on this site have you contacted the Innocence Project? If not, then get on the phone and do it.
Otherwise, you are wasting your time and ours and I'm about ready to lock the thread.
Who accused him?
Of what?
Who was the witness?
What crime was he convicted of? Name that crime?
Argue it where?
In court?
If you expect to argue this in court it isn't likely to happen without money for an attorney.
Unless you can get an attorney to work for free which is highly unlikely.
In all the time you've been on this site have you contacted the Innocence Project? If not, then get on the phone and do it.
Otherwise, you are wasting your time and ours and I'm about ready to lock the thread.
army judge
Super Moderator
The magic words are: I WANT A LAWYER. I CHOOSE TO USE MY RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
Finally, say nothing, do nothing.
You should only provide your name, address, date of birth.
You wanna talk to someone about the case, wait until you hire or receive a court appointed attorney.
Finally, don't discuss YOUR case with friends, relatives, cell mates.
I'm sorry Arizona I tap out. You are right. Im definitely out of my depth. I'm going to pitch it to the innocence project. Although I'm pretty sure they'll say they don't do legal innocence just actual innocence. Thank you for having the patience to entertain my ignorance. But just in case the innocence project doesn't take the case. Whats a good cost of a decent attorney? One arm or an arm and a leg? Lol. Just teasen. Thank you guys for real.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Your welcome.
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
Convicted of what crime(s)?
You're not an attorney, so you cannot legally do anything other than provide him with emotional and/or financial support.
Whatever happened happened, so asking at this point if it could happen is pointless. The ONLY relevant question is whether what DID happen gives rise to any valid claim for post-conviction relief, and there is no way anyone here can opine intelligently about that.
None of the stuff you've been asking about has anything to do with an "actual innocence" argument.
Red Kayak
Well-Known Member
So... in spite of the thread title of "actual innocence", all you're really interested in is legal innocence.
That ship has already sailed, baby, and is long over the horizon.
He's your brother, and you want to think the best of him. Maybe his girlfriend had a good, credible reason for calling 911.
Share this page
