Craft bubble. The UK's favourite crafting community
RSS
www.foampositeone.com Miranda Takes More Hits From Supreme Court by John T Floyd
Posted On 07/05/2012 02:50:16 by reytujtryrtytrgr

v class="hft-lines"
Florida v. Powell and Maryland v. Shatzer: Why Criminal Suspects Should Never Talk to the Police Without an Attorney

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In December 2008 police officer Timothy Abernethy was chasing a suspect through a Houston apartment complex when the suspect www.foampositeone.com, M. J. Landor Electrolime foamposite, reportedly fired several shots at the officer. According to official reports, one of the bullets knock the 11-year police veteran to the ground at which time Landor approached him and shot him in the head. A massive police manhunt was undertaken to apprehend Landor Foamposites For Cheap, a parole violator Foamposites Galaxy, who was captured several hours later. Landor reportedly gave the police a detailed confession to the crime during several hours of police questioning.

Landor’s capital murder trial got underway recently with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office seeking the death penalty. Laine Lindsey Cheap Foamposites, Landor’s attorney, filed a motion to suppress the videotaped confession his client gave to the police. Evidence presented at the hearing, and reported in the Houston Chronicle, revealed that the police questioned Landor for approximately four hours before they actually began to videotape the suspect’s statement. Landor told the court he falsely confessed to shooting Abernethy because he was afraid the police were going to kill him. Assistant District Attorney Maria McAnulty dismissed Landor’s testimony as being untruthful, telling the court the videotape clearly shows the suspect was advised of right to remain silent.

Lindsey pressed the court to suppress the confession because the police, three of whom were in the interrogation room and a larger group standing outside the room, questioned Landor for more than four hours before turning on the recorder and videotaping just 20 minutes of the interrogation. During the 20-minute taped session, Landor said the shooting of Abernethy was a “freak accident;” that he fell while being chased by the officer and the gun went off at which time he kept shooting. McAnulty called several police officers who testified about what Landor reportedly told them when the interrogation session was not being taped; specifically, that Landor admitted he walked over and shot Abernethy in the head as he lay wounded on the ground.

Given the discrepancies between what Landor told the police during the 20-minute videotaped session and what he reportedly told the police during the four-hour non-taped session, Lindsey had every reason to press for the suppression of the all statements made by his client. Not unexpectedly, however, State District Judge Michael McSpadden denied the defense attorney’s suppression motion.

The Chronicle report pointed out that McAnulty informed the court that Landor could be heard on the videotape waiving his right to remain silent. The Chronicle report did not indicate whether Landor had been advised of his right to counsel. We will assume he was so advised since the police advised him of his right to remain silent. But that assumption is made with the observation that the right to silence must be accompanied by three additional rights: 2) anything a suspect says can be used against him in a court of law; 3) that he has a right to the presence of an attorney; and 4) that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to him prior to any questioning if he so desires. These rights attach to a suspect prior to questioning once he is placed in a custodial setting under Miranda v. Arizona. 1/ These prophylactic measures were put in place by the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that criminal suspects are not compelled to give evidence against themselves in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution―an amendment made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. 2/

The Supreme Court in Miranda pointed out that there are “inherently compelling pressures” in a custodial interrogation like the one Landor was subject

If you need further information just follow this:

Tags: Www.foampositeone.com



Bookmark:


© 2009 IMMEDIATE MEDIA ORIGIN COMPANY LIMITED. | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | CODE OF CONDUCT