Looks like Boston Marathon Bombers are caught - Sunil Tripathi & Mike Mulugeta

By all reports, officials “spoke” to a “cognitively aware” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night as they negotiated for his surrender and arrest. However, the arresting officials with whom he was negotiating somehow didn’t see fit to Mirandize Tsarnaev at that time – an action that could have been accomplished simultaneous with and would have taken less time than hoisting him from the boat and securing handcuffs on his wrists; because, as the government later announced, it never had any intention of Mirandizing him: the U.S. justice system stumbled.

Subsequently, the government made public its intentions to invoke the “public safety exception” – even as other government officials gave an “all clear” signal in Watertown indicating that the time of “imminent danger” had passed: the U.S. justice system stumbled.

Again conveying no “imminent danger” and underscoring previous stumbling decisions to abrogate this citizen’s rights, Boston’s mayor announced the Boston bombers had acted alone – yet, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has still not been Mirandized: the U.S. justice system stumbled.

By definition, the "public safety exception" subordinates an individual’s right to due process to other considerations. So, your assertion that individuals subject to such an exception are "getting due process” – “due process” enjoyed by all other U.S. citizens – is bogus and false. The U.S. justice system can still redeem itself if Tsarnaev is Mirandized prior to further questioning, but this administration has not rescinded its announcement that it plans to invoke the “public safety exception.”

_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_t he_public_safety_exception_and _terrorism.html Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I agree with IB on this one. Read him his rights and let the justice system work as it should.

If the government wants to know something, cut a deal with the defendants lawyer.

You're evidently having trouble with reading since you are repeating the same questions that were already answered at: http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1052725918&postcount=84 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That post didn't answer ANY of the questions I asked above.

And a judge isn't even involved yet and won't be until this thing ends up in court. I don't even know why they raised the DOJ memo. The public safety exception has been around for 24 years - long before that memo.

The cops/prosecutors don't have to ask permission to speak to an arrested suspect. They can talk to him if they want. They just can't use any statements he makes against himself - unless it is the rare circumstance where the public safety exception applies.

Look at the cases already cited, including by YOU - Quarles and Khalil. The judge never came into the picture until trial.

I agree with IB on this one. Read him his rights and let the justice system work as it should.

If the government wants to know something, cut a deal with the defendants lawyer.
Originally Posted by WTF

It depends on who they are going after.

If the feds are only after HIM, I agree. They don't even need his statements. They have more than enough evidence to convict already.

But, I'm pretty sure they are after the others and they don't want the wounded bomber to clam up.

If that is the case, the feds are finally getting clever and I'm in favor.

If the statements aren't used against the wounded bomber, all due process considerations become moot. There is no need to cut a deal with his lawyer.

You can't violate due process right hypothetically or in the abstract. If his statements aren't used against him, then no harm no foul.

People who watch too much Law & Order may think it is dirty pool, but it isn't.

The Miranda warnings are not some magical incantation that must be recited before you can put someone in jail. They provide guidelines to cops and prosecutors to get defendant statements admitted as evidence. If the feds don't try to introduce it at trial, no due process problem and the public safety exception isn't even needed.

That post didn't answer ANY of the questions I asked above.

And a judge isn't even involved yet and won't be until this thing ends up in court.I don't even know why they raised the DOJ memo. The public safety exception has been around for 24 years - long before that memo.

The cops/prosecutors don't have to ask permission to speak to an arrested suspect.They can't talk to him if they want. They just can't use any statements he makes against himself - unless it is the rare circumstance where the public safety exception applies.

Look at the cases already cited, including by YOU - Quarles and Khalil.The judge never came into the picture until trial.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

The purpose of the DOJ memo is to keep expanding on the latitude given to LE by New York v. Quarles until some court says enough is enough. Already stated above: the U.S. justice system can still redeem itself if Tsarnaev is Mirandized prior to further questioning, but this administration has not rescinded its announcement that it plans to invoke the “public safety exception” -- which no longer has any validity in this case.

The Miranda warnings are not some magical incantation that must be recited before you can put someone in jail. They provide guidelines to cops and prosecutors to get defendant statements admitted as evidence. If the feds don't try to introduce it at trial, no due process problem and the public safety exception isn't even needed. Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's the conundrum: citizens are foolishly allowing the government to expand its powers at their expense when they allow the government to invoke the "public safety exception" and then allow the government to deny evidence garnered came about through such a violation of due process. Letting the government employ spandex laws is unflatteringly dangerous.

I agree with IB on this one. Read him his rights and let the justice system work as it should.

If the government wants to know something, cut a deal with the defendants lawyer. Originally Posted by WTF

+1

The purpose of the DOJ memo is to keep expanding on the latitude given to LE by New York v. Quarles until some court says enough is enough. Already stated above: the U.S. justice system can still redeem itself if Tsarnaev is Mirandized prior to further questioning, but this administration has not rescinded its announcement that it plans to invoke the “public safety exception” -- which no longer has any validity in this case. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That's twice you mentioned "this administration" rather than the FBI.

Which I suspect is the real source of the problem for you.

That's twice you mentioned "this administration" rather than the FBI.

Which I suspect is the real source of the problem for you.[/SIZE] Originally Posted by ExNYer

The DOJ is appointed to serve by the president. Reading remains the real source of your problem -- excerpt from Slate article already cited above:

"There is one specific circumstance in which it makes sense to hold off on Miranda. It’s exactly what the name of the exception suggests. The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario. And that should trouble anyone who worries about the police railroading suspects, which can end in false confessions."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...terrorism.html

BTW, Slate is a liberal outlet.

excerpt from Slate article already cited above:

"There is one specific circumstance in which it makes sense to hold off on Miranda. It’s exactly what the name of the exception suggests. The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Tsarnaev. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes, indeed. It may or may not be the case with Tsarnaev. Let's let a judge rule, if in fact they try to use his statements against him.

The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario. And that should trouble anyone who worries about the police railroading suspects, which can end in false confessions." Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Holder is a twat and his memos that try to expand the public safety exception to include any questions that might lead to intelligence information are bullshit.

But the expanded rules aren't needed to ask Tsarnaev questions about unexploded bombs. That's all I ever mentioned above. I said other questions (e.g., "Why did you bomb the marathon") are still off limits. The original scope of the public safety exception - at least the one prior to 9-11 - is all that is needed to ask him specific questions about bombs.

BTW, Slate is a liberal outlet. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Thank you. Captain Obvious.

I think I am going to state this now while it's still early. This case may have an unconventional outcome.

I think I am going to state this now while it's still early. This case may have an unconventional outcome. Originally Posted by acp5762

You're going to have to be more specific...

The purpose of the DOJ memo is to keep expanding on the latitude given to LE by New York v. Quarles until some court says enough is enough. Already stated above: the U.S. justice system can still redeem itself if Tsarnaev is Mirandized prior to further questioning, but this administration has not rescinded its announcement that it plans to invoke the “public safety exception” -- which no longer has any validity in this case.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Exactly.

Which goes back to my point exNYer, provide him a lawyer and let the lawyer cut a deal if in fact there are others involved but the public safety exception seems to be being abused.

Exactly.

Which goes back to my point exNYer, provide him a lawyer and let the lawyer cut a deal if in fact there are others involved but the public safety exception seems to be being abused. Originally Posted by WTF

Why would you need HIS lawyer to cut a deal regarding people they haven't even found yet?

If they can get him to make statements about others by NOT reading him the Miranda warnings, then he can be used as a WITNESS against the others.

There is no need to use his statements against him as a DEFENDANT.

In fact, if you DO bring in his lawyer and you cut a deal for his testimony, then the lawyers for the other defendant(s) can try to impeach his statements by pointing to the deal he made with the prosecutors and saying that he lied to save himself and to get a lighter sentence.

In fact, if you DO bring in his lawyer and you cut a deal for his testimony, then the lawyers for the other defendant(s) can try to impeach his statements by pointing to the deal he made with the prosecutors and saying that he lied to save himself and to get a lighter sentence. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, that is in fact how our system of justice works. No need to change it now IMHO.

Yes, that is in fact how our system of justice works. No need to change it now IMHO. Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not saying change it.

I'm saying you don't have offer a deal to him at all.

If he says something incriminating about OTHERS in a pre-Miranda statement, there is no need to make a deal with him or his lawyer. You already have the statement and he offered it up voluntarily without receiving a deal, so it is harder to impeach his statement.

Deals in return for confessions are not automatic in our system of justice. if you already have overwhelming evidence, there is no need to make a deal.

Can the mods please delete the names in the headlines? It`s kind of strange to have fake names on top. I think the ones did not do it and now are scared

http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/tee...pect-517750242