Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Judge throws out confessionFollow

QuoteReply
#1 Jun 30 2006 at 11:32 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592266717703
View User Forum
Scholar
***
3,494 posts
Smiley: motz
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/30/couey.hearing.ap/index.html wrote:
INVERNESS, Florida (AP) -- The confession of a man charged with kidnapping, raping and killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford isn't admissible in court, but the discovery of her body can be used as evidence, a judge ruled Friday.

John Evander Couey, a 47-year-old convicted sex offender, gave the confession to detectives, but also told them that he wanted to consult a lawyer. He wasn't given the opportunity to do so.



What's his line for the not-guilty verdict going to be? "Someone set me up!!11!1111one! The cops did it!"

Seriously, this "admissible/inadmissible" thing needs to be tweaked a bit.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#2 Jun 30 2006 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
Debalic
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
You don't have anything aggainst due process, do you?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#3 Jun 30 2006 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
Seriously, what is up with due process and the right to representation?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#4 Jun 30 2006 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
bodhisattva
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
What kind of **** cop denies the guy his lawyer, he should lose his job on the spot.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#5 Jun 30 2006 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592266717703
View User Forum
Scholar
***
3,494 posts
Forgive me for thinking for a second that the first thing that wouldn't be spouted back is protection of due process Smiley: rolleyes

Evidence gathered "improperly" isn't evidence? Confessions that weren't coerced, but w/o the presence of a lawyer, aren't confessions? "Oops, he didn't dot his 'i's and cross his 't's. The warrant is invalid and as such, all the incriminating evidence gathered from it is non-existant."

Yes I understand the constitution and what it says and law of the land and blah blah blah. Doesn't mean I can't dissent over how the concept of due process is handled here. Matter of fact, law of the land says I can vocally dissent, so Smiley: bah
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#6 Jun 30 2006 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591751142559
Scholar
***
2,328 posts
DAMN YOU MIRANDA!!!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#7 Jun 30 2006 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
bodhisattva
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
There is a list of things you have to do, its hammered into a cops head the entire way through training. They know if they don't do it that they are f'ucking up any chance of prosecution. To mess up something as simple as denying a guy his right to a lawyer is such a monumental f'uck up at the most basic level that the cop shouldn't have a job.

It's the cops fault this p'edo rapist is gonna have a chance of getting off, not the justice systems.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#8 Jun 30 2006 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts

Quote:
Matter of fact, law of the land says I can vocally dissent, so


You also have the right to remain silent.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#9 Jun 30 2006 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591878711482
**
451 posts
Quote:
47-year-old convicted sex offender


Let him go to court and hopefully someone else caps him as he is walking in. It is what he deserves. If that fails (which it prolly will) rest assured that he will still go to jail and there he will meet big bubba and all his friends.

Before I get flamed and nuked yes I know he hasn't been to court yet and blah blah blah... please see above quote. After once imo he should just be shot.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#10 Jun 30 2006 at 12:08 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591751142559
Scholar
***
2,328 posts
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
It's the cops fault this p'edo rapist is gonna have a chance of getting off, not the justice systems.



Wait... wait wait wait, cops aren't part of the justice system?!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#11 Jun 30 2006 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
Thumbelyna
View User Forum
No Gag Reflex
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
It's the cops fault this p'edo rapist is gonna have a chance of getting off, not the justice systems.


/nod

It's his verbal confession that has been found to be inadmissible. The girl's body still can be used as evidence and if there's physical evidence to connect him to the crime, I hope it's enough to carry a conviction.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#12 Jun 30 2006 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592266717703
View User Forum
Scholar
***
3,494 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:

Quote:
Matter of fact, law of the land says I can vocally dissent, so


You also have the right to remain silent.


And I also have the right to GFM, but whether I excercise it or not is not your call.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#13 Jun 30 2006 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
bodhisattva
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
You're trying to blame it on Miranda being flawed and that it needs to be tweaked so that people that are obviously guilty can't get off on technicalities.

I'm saying Miranda is fine and doesnt need to be touch, it's the sorry as cop who is to blame.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#14 Jun 30 2006 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
Althrun wrote:
Forgive me for thinking for a second that the first thing that wouldn't be spouted back is protection of due process Smiley: rolleyes

Evidence gathered "improperly" isn't evidence? Confessions that weren't coerced, but w/o the presence of a lawyer, aren't confessions? "Oops, he didn't dot his 'i's and cross his 't's. The warrant is invalid and as such, all the incriminating evidence gathered from it is non-existant."
In short, no. There are guidelines to their job that should be second-nature, since they know that, should these be overlooked, they are ******** up their case and ruining someone's chances of having their aggressor convicted.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#15 Jun 30 2006 at 12:33 PM Rating: Default
__DEL__1622420402685
Scholar
*****
19,369 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Althrun wrote:
Forgive me for thinking for a second that the first thing that wouldn't be spouted back is protection of due process Smiley: rolleyes

Evidence gathered "improperly" isn't evidence? Confessions that weren't coerced, but w/o the presence of a lawyer, aren't confessions? "Oops, he didn't dot his 'i's and cross his 't's. The warrant is invalid and as such, all the incriminating evidence gathered from it is non-existant."
In short, no. There are guidelines to their job that should be second-nature, since they know that, should these be overlooked, they are ******** up their case and ruining someone's chances of having their aggressor convicted.


/nod



To the person who thinks otherwise:

Let's say you disable your airbags and never use your seat belt. You're speeding down the road like you always do and ignore the laws of safety. You crash into a telephone pole (cuz you're stupid like that) and you go flying out the windshield. Damn those seatbelts are defective and need to be adjusted to work, because obviously they didn't prevent you splattering across the asphalt like they should have. Smiley: rolleyes
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#16 Jun 30 2006 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592266717703
View User Forum
Scholar
***
3,494 posts
I do think that in these cases they're ignoring the last line of the Miranda Warning:
Quote:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.


See, this is my contention: They can't make you excercise or waive these rights outside of your own volition. If you're stupid enough to keep talking when a lawyer isn't there yet after you've said "I want to see my lawyer" then I don't agree that what you say should be tossed out. It's a weak technicality.

I understand that under the current legal system that such a technicality is immutable. I'm not denying it or arguing that it is currently a fact of the court system. I'm just saying it's mockery of justice.




Hopefully what happened in Miranda's case will repeat here: I.e. confession tossed out, but still convicted with other evidence and witnesses.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#17 Jun 30 2006 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
bodhisattva
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
He asked for his right to representation, he was denied that right.

Thats where it falls apart.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#18 Jun 30 2006 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
Quote:
If you're stupid enough to keep talking when a lawyer isn't there yet after you've said "I want to see my lawyer" then I don't agree that what you say should be tossed out. It's a weak technicality.


No, if the cop is stupid enough to continue questioning after that request has been made then it deserves to be tossed out. Like if you ignore the sign above the sink which commands you to wash your hands before returning to the deep-fry station where you prepare the french-fries, I don't want to eat your shi[red][/red]t. It's part of the job, inconvenient as it may be.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#19 Jun 30 2006 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592266717703
View User Forum
Scholar
***
3,494 posts
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
He asked for his right to representation, he was denied that right.

Thats where it falls apart.


And he was also denied the right to remain silent?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#20 Jun 30 2006 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592260045708
Sage
****
6,730 posts
Quote:
You have the right to an attorney


How hard is it to understand he was denied that right? You make earthworms look smart.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#21 Jun 30 2006 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
Quote:
See, this is my contention: They can't make you excercise or waive these rights outside of your own volition. If you're stupid enough to keep talking when a lawyer isn't there yet after you've said "I want to see my lawyer" then I don't agree that what you say should be tossed out. It's a weak technicality.
I understand that under the current legal system that such a technicality is immutable. I'm not denying it or arguing that it is currently a fact of the court system. I'm just saying it's mockery of justice.
And sometimes, when the defendant is innocent (hey! It happens!), it's the embodiment of justice.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#22 Jun 30 2006 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592266717703
View User Forum
Scholar
***
3,494 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
If you're stupid enough to keep talking when a lawyer isn't there yet after you've said "I want to see my lawyer" then I don't agree that what you say should be tossed out. It's a weak technicality.


No, if the cop is stupid enough to continue questioning after that request has been made then it deserves to be tossed out. Like if you ignore the sign above the sink which commands you to wash your hands before returning to the deep-fry station where you prepare the french-fries, I don't want to eat your shi[red][/red]t. It's part of the job, inconvenient as it may be.


The miranda ruling and the warning itself says nothing about the interogation stopping when someones asks for a lawyer. There was nothing presented that stopped him from being silent. Unless they had a gun to his head, maybe.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#23 Jun 30 2006 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
Sure, theer's nothing saying the interrogation must stop, but the cop knows that everything obtained from it after the request is inadmissable.

Thus, dumb cop.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#24 Jun 30 2006 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
Althrun wrote:
The miranda ruling and the warning itself says nothing about the interogation stopping when someones asks for a lawyer. There was nothing presented that stopped him from being silent. Unless they had a gun to his head, maybe.
Christ, should the Miranda warning consist of a half-hour brief on procedure? Halting the questioning is an internal procedure that the cops are trained on just so that these kinds of errors can be avoided.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#25 Jun 30 2006 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592266717703
View User Forum
Scholar
***
3,494 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Althrun wrote:
The miranda ruling and the warning itself says nothing about the interogation stopping when someones asks for a lawyer. There was nothing presented that stopped him from being silent. Unless they had a gun to his head, maybe.
Christ, should the Miranda warning consist of a half-hour brief on procedure? Halting the questioning is an internal procedure that the cops are trained on just so that these kinds of errors can be avoided.


And I'm of the opinion that such a procedure shouldn't be needed.

Jebus, you people are acting like I'm saying that we should skip the 5th amendment all together.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#26 Jun 30 2006 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
bodhisattva
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
If any part of Miranda is violated then its a no go. You don't get to pick and choose.

"Well he was denied his right to council but hey the guy still could have kept his mouth shut."

It doesnt work like that, sorry. It also should never work like that, for obvious reasons.

Edited, Jun 30th 2006 at 1:54pm EDT by bodhisattva
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
▲ Page top
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 354 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (354)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC