• Home
  • News
  • SCOTUS to Decide Case Expanding Miranda Warning

Constitutional Law

SCOTUS to Decide Case Expanding Miranda Warning

Posted Jun 22, 2009 9:28 AM CST
By Molly McDonough

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to take a case that explores whether police should have to tell suspects that they have a right to have a lawyer present during interrogations.

The high court challenge comes from Kevin Dwayne Powell, who was convicted in Florida of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Associated Press reports.

When arrested, Powell was Mirandized, with officers telling him he had a right to a lawyer before questioning. But they didn't tell him he could have lawyer during his interrogation.

After Powell was convicted and sentenced to 10 years, he appealed and challenged the standard form warning used by Tampa police as inadequate. The Florida Supreme Court agreed and overturned his conviction.

SCOTUSblog, in a post in April predicting the issue was ripe for review, noted that the issue has caused a division in the lower courts.

Comments

1.

KS
Jun 22, 2009 10:50 AM CST

I don’t understand this AT ALL.  An “interrogation” is nothing more than an intense period of questioning.  The suspect was advised he had a right to a lawyer “before questioning.”  Yet he claims that the Miranda advisement was inadequate (i.e., he didn’t understand this included during his interrogation) because the police didn’t use that exact word?  What’s more, the Florida Supreme Court BOUGHT INTO this argument and overturned his conviction?  Seriously???

I believe in the justice system in this country, including the rights that we afford our suspects.  As a criminal prosecutor, my duty is to seek justice, not obtain a conviction at all costs.  I believe that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, that we must follow the rules of law when obtaining convictions, and that convictions obtained improperly should be overturned…. 

But THIS is just RIDICULOUS.

Flag this comment

2.

George Patsourakos
Jun 22, 2009 12:35 PM CST

I believe that police should be required to tell suspects they have arrested that they have a right to have a lawyer during their interrogation as well as before questioning. The U.S. Supreme Court should rule that the police must inform suspects that they have a right to have a lawyer present during interrogations. After all, that is the right of a suspect—is it not?

Flag this comment

3.

Really
Jun 23, 2009 10:58 AM CST

I think Miranda is pretty clear as it is, but IF it gets changed, I hope we don’t see a flood of convictions overturned on that basis alone.  How dumb do we have to anticipate the average person (or potential criminal) to be?

Flag this comment

4.

Jim @ 2009-06-23-3 2145-0400
Jun 23, 2009 7:58 PM CST

KS, your jurisdiction ‘s public is fortunate to have a prosecutor who think that way.

There are far too many who do not see their careers that way.

Some prosecutors believe their clients are the victims, not the public.

Obtained seconds ago before 2009-06-23-2153 -0400

“Appeals
“We seek justice for victims and protect the community by
ensuring that criminal convictions are upheld on appeal.”

“The Appeals Unit responds to appeals filed by convicted criminals trying to get their convictions reversed. Under certain circumstances, we appeal decisions of various courts when they are contrary to the State’s position.”

“When criminals file appeals with higher courts, we fight to preserve convictions by filing written responses in the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court, and federal courts, including US Supreme Court.”

————————————————————————————-
#1 KS 6/22/09 ~12.8 -0400
As a criminal prosecutor, my duty is to seek justice, not obtain a conviction at all costs.  .... that we must follow the rules of law when obtaining convictions, and that convictions obtained improperly should be overturned….

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.