[ SECRET POST #2594 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2594 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 094 secrets from Secret Submission Post #371.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

L&O SUV recently had an ep where Benson had gotten a guy to falsely confess because of the length of interrogation, and she was all guilty when they tried to find the person who actually did the crime.

And maybe this should tell you something about the state of the American Justice System, but most of the time they aren't breaking the rules. They toe the line and the toe it close, but they're actually within regulations.

For instance, if a suspect says something like "Maybe I should see my lawyer," according to SCOTUS, continuing to question the suspect is not a violation of Miranda, because it wasn't a demand/statement. Even "Can I see my lawyer" is sometimes iffy. There are tons of legal ways for the cops to be manipulative.

[skippydelicious]

Every defense of cops doing iffy things boils down to "but we only violated the spirit of the law". When I was a GM for RP groups, that sort of argument was the one that got punished the worse. Setting out to munchkin the rules like that is worse than just breaking them, because it undermines the rules themselves.

[meadowphoenix]

Well, though I agree with you mostly, sometimes it's not even a "spirit of the law" issue, because the "spirit" is full of holes and incoherent justifications. The 4th amendment alone is a mess.

And also, the spirit of the law is mostly to give the least rights to the suspect as it would be fair to do, so I can't really say these tactics are against the spirit either.

[(Anonymous)]

I have a lawyer friend who says that if they mention lawyer in any way, the police have to stop questioning them. Hmm.

[(Anonymous)]

"Have to" hell. Here, every American citizen needs to watch this video. It's a law professor and a cop explaining why you should never, ever talk to cops. Period. About anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[meadowphoenix]

That is a definite nope. However, I'm sure there are many cops who don't appreciate taking the risk that a judge will throw out parts of their case because of it, and your lawyer friend, if your friend even deals with a lot of criminal matters (if not they probably don't know as much about it as they think), may know judges who are inclined to consider such things violations.

But I agree with guy above me. My criminal procedure professor also told us that if we learned nothing else from the course, it was to say, "I want a lawyer" and then to shut the fuck up.

[crunchysunrises]

Federal laws in the U.S. are the bare minimum that a citizen is owed. Many/Most states have more stringent rules/standards that provide their citizens greater rights and protections.

[meadowphoenix]

Unless you have receipts, I'm going to say that that's a) not accurate on the whole of criminal procedure, b) not accurate when it come to Miranda (more accurate when it comes to 4th Amendment) because c) it depends on what you mean by both more stringent and more protection, practically, and d) depends heavily on the opinions of the judge and maybe the appeals court, which can be very different than the intention of the law itself.

For instance, instead of saying your Miranda rights, Maryland does or used to have a law where the suspect had to be given a written version and they had to sign it. This was touted as more stringent and more protection, but practically it was neither.

[crunchysunrises]

Receipts for what, exactly?

[meadowphoenix]

By receipts, I mean back what you're saying up. You made a general comment about the different rules between states being both more stringent and more protective. Where, how, and in what respects? Everything I've read says that while there may be different laws, they aren't really any more protective, and not really more stringent than the federal ones. Furthermore state courts defer to federal court more than they should. So how did you come to this conclusion?

[crunchysunrises]

I actually considered writing a long, involved reply, but I don't have the time. So, three points:

1.) The 4th Amendment deals with searches and seizures. The right to counsel and when it's activated comes under the 6th amendment.

2.) My previous statement was paraphrased from a majority opinion set down by the U.S. Supreme Court, one dealing with this topic no less. But it's interesting that you find it inaccurate.

3.) Good luck on your paper.

[meadowphoenix]

Maybe you should have gone with the long drawn out reply.

1)I know. You didn't specify whether you meant criminal procedure as a whole or just the Miranda rights issue. So I did specify.

2)Again, which issue? Criminal procedure as a whole or Miranda rights? If just Miranda rights, then as a I said, differing laws may be touted as "more stringent" but practically, then aren't. Again, which topic? Miranda as incorporated against the States, or it's effectiveness in various districts? But I'm happy to read the SCOTUS opinion you're talking about.

3)No paper, I actually study this and interned in this division. But good luck with yours!

[crunchysunrises]

Maybe you have more free time. Or a greater love of muffins. Either way, I'm good with my choices.