Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Is this believable?
From: "Frank Farmer"<>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:37:44 -0500


By "must" I meant that in order to use the statements outside the realm of
impeachment or exceptions like excited utterance type scenarios.  But, all the
same, thanks for the review.  I agree that there is very often a
misunderstanding about what, exactly, Miranda offers as far as protections. 
The Supremes have been chipping away at it for years and I'm suprised they
didn't throw it out jsut a couple of years ago.  Anyway, good luck in the
court room.  My cases, obviously enough, are not in the criminal realm.


On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 07:06:49 -0800 Bryan Caldwell <>

> On 12/7/02 11:02 AM, "Frank Farmer"  wrote:
> > Miranda rights are required for "custodial
> interrogation."  That term is often
> > debated, but basically , if you can't leave,
> then you must be mirandized.
> > That includes the officer holding your
> driver's license at a traffic stop if I
> > remember my crimial law correctly.  I don't
> practice that very much.
> > 
> > Frank
> > 
> > On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:40:21 -0800 Bryan
> Caldwell 
> > wrote:
> > 
> Frank,
> It is never the case that you MUST be
> Mirandized - meaning that if you are
> not, you must automatically be released or that
> the charges against you must
> automatically be dismissed. Failure to give
> Miranda warnings only means that
> any statements you make that are the result of
> in-custody questioning cannot
> be used against you in the prosecution's
> case-in-chief. If you are detained
> or arrested and the police don't intend to
> question you, they don't need to
> Mirandize you. Un-Mirandized responses to
> police questioning can be used to
> rebut contradictory testimony that you give at
> a later date. For this
> reason, not giving Miranda warnings can often
> be a tactical decision on the
> part of law enforcement. If you are questioned
> without having been given the
> Miranda warnings, your statements may prevent
> you from effectively
> testifying on your own behalf at a later trial
> or other proceeding. I think
> that television and movies have given many
> people mistaken impressions about
> Miranda. I often have clients who are charged
> with criminal offenses and
> think that all charges against them have to be
> dropped because they were
> never Mirandized. This is not the case. It is
> true that, in some cases, the
> prosecution's case cannot be proven without the
> use of an un-Mirandized
> statement. In those cases, if the defense
> attorney makes the appropriate
> objection and prevails on the issue, the case
> will likely be dismissed. But,
> if the prosecution can prove their case without
> using an un-Mirandized
> statement, the case will go forward. Miranda
> has no effect on the legality
> of an arrest - it deals with the admissibility
> of statements made by an
> in-custody suspect that are the result of
> police questioning.
> Bryan
> --
> To unsubscribe, see

- --
To unsubscribe, see