[ 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

[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.