Miranda Warning: it's the law

Source: The Lima News, OhioSept.儲存 28--LIMA -- Earlier this month a judge threw out one of the statements a teen made in the double murder of two other teens ruling officers did not properly inform him of his constitutional rights.The Miranda warning, as it's referred to, is part of American culture. Even for people who never have been in trouble with the law, they've heard it at one time or another on a police show as an officer arrests a person.While the Miranda warning is a short passage advising people of four rights, usually starting with the right to remain silent, it's been the subject of highly contested Supreme Court battles including the 1966 case that established the requirement for police to issue the Miranda warning to suspects in custody before questioning them.In the Michael Fay case in Putnam County, Judge Randall Basinger threw out Fay's second statement to investigators ruling a detective failed to advise Fay of his Constitutional rights before the interview. The second interview came a day after the first interview the judge allowed into evidence.Ohio Northern University Law Professor Antoinette Clarke said allowing 24 hours to pass between interviews requires the Miranda warning to be read before beginning the second interview.A person in custody may have changed his mind during that time and chose not to answer any more questions, Clarke said."Even if you waive your rights you can invoke them at any time. The officer should have offered him a fresh new, opportunity," Clarke said.Reading the warning does not take much time and protects both the officers and suspect, Clarke said.Devastating ResultsWhile police officers know Miranda well, problems arise when an officer deviates from the recommended text of the Miranda warning.The most famous local case in the last quarter century involved two inmates who murdered a case manager at a local prison in 1996. Investigators with the Ohio State Highway Patrol read what they called "soft Miranda."The result was devastating for the prosecution. The prosecution's best evidence was thrown out and prosecutors were left scrambling to salvage the case in hopes of sending the men to death row.Judge Richard Warren, retired Allen County Common Pleas Court judge, was one of the judges who tossed the statements."They gave Miranda but it was off the cuff and not anywhere close to what Miranda rights were," Warren said.In the end, one of the men pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and received a life sentence in addition to a life sentence had had in another case that once landed him on death row. The other man, a serial rapist, escaped the death penalty at trial.The outcome left employees at the prison and in the community with a bitter taste because both men likely would have never been released from prison before the murder anyway. Some saw it as a free murder.One of the men who prosecuted the case, Dave Bowers, said after losing the statements he knew the case was in trouble."It certainly erased any chance for a death penalty conviction," Bower said.One of the attorneys on the other side of the case, Bill Kluge, said getting the statements suppressed was a huge victory that changed the outcome of the case. It was the first and only time in 48 death penalty cases Kluge has handled that statements were suppressed.Kluge estimates he's successfully had statements suppressed 12 times on Miranda violations during a 38-year law career that includes thousands of criminal cases."You have to read them all just as they are proclaimed on the cards all police have," Kluge said.The Miranda WarningThe 1966 Supreme Court ruling said a person in custody has to be informed of four basic constitutional rights. Those include the right to remain silent; that anything the suspect says can and will be used against the suspect in court; the suspect has the right to an attorney before speaking with police officers and during questioning; and if the suspect cann迷你倉t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed, Clarke said.The Miranda warning was established after the Supreme Court reviewed the practice of police interrogation, she said."The Supreme Court decided people needed protection in that situation from police overreaching," she said.Before the Miranda warning, officers could keep questioning a person and not let up until they forced a confession out of someone, she said.A suspect must voluntarily waive the rights before being questioned. The law does not require a person to sign a form after Miranda, only that an officer advices the person of the rights and has a true belief the suspect understood the warning and agreed to talk.A person also may invoke the Miranda rights at any time during an interrogation, she said.Local police agencies typically use a form that contains the exact rights officers are required to tell a suspect. Detectives also ask people to sign a waiver form and the process is recorded on audio and video."It's better for the court. You signed it. It's not just the officer's word," Warren said.The judge also found the video and audio recording helpful and found it protected police officers showing that they did, in fact, admonish suspects correctly, he said.Lima Police Department officers receive training annually on updates in law including the Miranda warning, said Chief Kevin Martin. Department officials want to make sure officers get it right."We read it from a specific form. We don't try to memorize it that way we're sure we get it right," Martin said.For many years, Lima Police Department officers have used video and audioto record interrogations and the reading of a person's Miranda rights, he said."The idea of videotaping an interview, whenever possible, is a good thing. It lets people see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears the exchange that takes place with the officer and the suspect," Martin said.Gray AreaPerhaps the biggest gray area is whether the person is in custody during questioning. If someone is in a police interrogation room and not free to leave, he is clearly in custody, Clarke said.But if an officer does not take someone into custody and that person is free to walk away, the officer can try to ask questions without reading the Miranda warning, Clarke said.The other big gray area that raises questions is how a person invokes his Miranda rights, Clarke said. Up until a 1994 Supreme Court ruling, if a person indicated in any way he wanted an attorney or wanted to stop talking, police had to honor it, she said.The 1994 case said a person must be clear and unambiguous in invoking Miranda. For example, if someone today asked a detective whether he should have a lawyer present for the interview, the officer could ignore the statement and keep asking questions, Clarke said.There are exceptions to Miranda such as unsolicited statements a person makes. For example, if a person, without being questioned by an officer, begins telling the officer about a crime he committed, the statement can be used. An example is the James Ream murder case from 2011 in which Ream approached an Allen County sheriff's deputy in a parking lot to tell him he shot his brother to death.There are also exceptions such as public safety, such as if officers are trying to find a bomb someone planted, Martin said.While television cop programs show officers reading Miranda upon arresting someone, Martin said that's only TV. He said it's rarely done at the time of arrest and almost always read when a detective sits a person down for an interview.In fact, it's rare a street officer has to read someone a Miranda warning, Martin said."I have had to do it but it's been extremely rare. I can tell you it's been exactly twice," Martin said, explaining it was years ago when he was a patrolman.Copyright: ___ (c)2013 The Lima News (Lima, Ohio) Visit The Lima News (Lima, Ohio) at .limaohio.com Distributed by MCT Information Services儲存倉