Can and Will be used against you

[quincy]

"In custody" and "In custody for purposes of Miranda" are two distinct elements of law. I'm sure TM can attest to the fact that the "Lawyer's Edition's" of SC decisions have very good commentary, if you will, on cases. Although many years have passed, I believe Miranda is one of those I read. More insight than a Law Journal Article, imo. Ernesto used to sell Miranda cards, signed, for a dollar.

Miranda is 50 years of common law, so in that respect, too many feathers on the chicken to count to be 100% in agreement by every Court. Simple avoidance of to admit or not to admit as evidence, any statement made, is simply arrest/cite on the evidence. If they are guilty, they know it and have a very good idea of a plea bargain in the future.

What?

 

[RJR]

Arrest on the evidence, regardless of statements made outside of Miranda, they still have the hard evidence. Arrests are made with warrants at times, which establishes PC, this is before any statements were ever made to possibly incriminate themselves, use that.

 

[Ohiogal]

Arrest on the evidence, regardless of statements made outside of Miranda, they still have the hard evidence. Arrests are made with warrants at times, which establishes PC, this is before any statements were ever made to possibly incriminate themselves, use that.

You make no sense.

 

[quincy]

You make no sense.

Thank you, Ohiogal.

I thought perhaps I was too low on caffeine last night because, after reading the posts several times, I could not for the life of me figure out what RJR was trying to say.

 

[Just Blue]

Thank you, Ohiogal.

I thought perhaps I was too low on caffeine last night because, after reading the posts several times, I could not for the life of me figure out what RJR was trying to say.

Try some more coffee and see if it helps..

 

[quincy]

Try some more coffee and see if it helps..

No. It doesn't.

 

[adjusterjack]

Please don’t suggest the court system is fair. I can provide you with more examples of it not being so than you could read in your remaining years on Earth. It tries to be fair and just; it hasn’t reached that point yet.

It seems to have headed in a direction opposite of fair for a long time now.

Read "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by law Professor James Duane. It's available on Amazon as a Kindle eBook.

You'll find a lot of support for your comments.

The phraseology is much older than Miranda. It's derived from a similar warning in British Law: "anything you say will be taken down and used against you in court." However, this didn't become an absolute requirement of British law until a couple of decades after Miranda.

Where did you find that quote? It's incomplete. The British "Caution" goes something like this.

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?"

 

[Just Blue]

This thread is over a year old

 

[quincy]

Spam-revived, perhaps?

 

[Just Blue]

Spam-revived, perhaps?

Not that I'm aware of. Goofy (OP) was online earlier today...perhaps he posted to the thread with a commercial link and it was reported??

 

[quincy]

Not that I'm aware of. Goofy (OP) was online earlier today...perhaps he posted to the thread with a commercial link and it was reported??

Ah. I just noticed this was a DisneyKid thread. I too saw that he was visiting the forum today. Interesting.