« | »

AP Pushes Leftist View Of Miranda Rulings

From the tireless propagandists at the Associated Press:

High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit

By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer
August 2, 2010

WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you’re remaining silent.

You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don’t have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?

The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.

(Photo of Ernesto Miranda at right.)

Notice that the AP claim that they are citing “experts.” In the entire article only two groups are cited by name. And only one of those says what the AP claims "the experts" say:

The high court has made clear it’s not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"It’s death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."

And what a surprise. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is a radical left wing organization.

The NACDL, among things, supports the rights of “enemy combatants” in the war on terror; calls for increased rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees; has filed amicus curiae briefs in support of radical attorney Lynne Stewart; and gave a “Lifetime Achievement Award” to International Action Center founder Ramsey Clark.

In other words, they are typical of the kind of ‘experts’ that the Associated Press always manages to produce to promote their own agenda.

The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision

The court’s three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group. "But I don’t think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead."

So the only other “expert” cited by the AP says that there is no controversy here.

This year’s Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers

However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning

Lawyers — and the Florida Supreme Court — said that didn’t make clear that lawyers can be present as the police are doing their questioning. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 7-2 majority decision, said all the required information was there

Yes, the former ACLU lawyer and board member, Ms. Ginsburg, is chipping away at the Miranda warning.

The next day, the court unanimously limited how long Miranda rights are valid.

The high court said for the first time that a suspect’s request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. The 9-0 ruling pulled back from an earlier decision that said that police must halt all questioning for all time if a suspect asks for a lawyer.

Note that this was a unanimous ruling by the radical rightwing Supreme Court.

Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer — once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks — without violating the person’s constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning…

And finally, the court’s conservatives used their 5-4 advantage to rule that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet if they want to invoke their "right to remain silent" and stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

All the criminal suspect needs to say is he or she is remaining silent, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent." …

Ah yes, that arch conservative fiend, Mr. Kennedy.

[The NACDL spokesman] Fisher thinks the court’s Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don’t want to confess. "Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda," Fisher said.

And, lest we forget, the unbiased Mr. Fisher is “the experts” – according to the AP.

This is the way our agenda driven news media brainwashes the public, day in and day out.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, August 2nd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “AP Pushes Leftist View Of Miranda Rulings”

  1. Liberals Demise says:

    Here come the Jackboot Brown shirts of the Obamao Justice regime to a sub station near you.

  2. Melly says:

    The lib position is ironic given the fact that they are trampling over our Constitution attempting to render it ineffective and irrelevant.
    As Justice Warren wrote in Miranda: “The constiutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissiblity of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody and deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way…..”

    The dissent opinion in Miranda is salient today. Justice White in the dissent opinion to Miranda wrote: “In some unknown number of cases, the Court’s rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity. The real concern is not the unfortunate consequences of this new decision on the criminal law as an abstract, disembodied series of authoritative proscriptions, but the impact on those who rely on the public authority for protection, and who, without it, can only engage in violent self-help with guns, knives and the help of their neighbors similarly inclined. There is, of [p543] course, a saving factor: the next victims are uncertain, unnamed and unrepresented in this case.”

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    “……but the impact on those who rely on the public authority for protection, and who, without it, can only engage in violent self-help with guns, knives and the help of their neighbors similarly inclined.”

    Here in lies the fact that there is no Miranda warning when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and right to enforce it against said perpetrator by me.
    Thanks Melly!

  4. confucius says:

    Does this apply to captured enemy combatants?

  5. NoNeoCommies says:

    Anyone that doesn’t already know their rights never watched TV, never read a newspaper, never received a liberal influenced education, or is just too young or incompetent to manage their own affairs.
    Too bad those rights may be a thing of the past as we stumble along the path to Socialism.

  6. jambon says:

    I thought the fish-lipped photo of Ernesto Miranda was actually our ol’ pal Al Franken.

  7. Landshark says:


    Miranda was killed in a bar fight and his killer invoked his right to silence and fled to Mexico. No one was ever punished for Miranda’s murder.

  8. Right of the People says:

    “The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers”

    They put in one too many words in there. Never mind, Ill fix it;

    The National Association of Criminal Lawyers

    There we go, that’s better although the last word is redundant when you look at the word that precedes it.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »