Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer were ignored

[No1]

Anyone here have a legal background?

Denying someone a Miranda warning and denying someone the right to an attorney are two very different things.

The Miranda warning is simply to inform suspects of their rights.

Not in this context they're not. They're necessarily intertwined in the instant case, you're incorrect.

Suspects only have a right to counsel only when they are facing offenses which will result in facing jail time as a starter. So yes, he has a right to counsel. But two things: (1) he was never formally charged with anything at the time of the questioning, and (2) the questioning at the time via the public safety exception basically makes it so that is was ongoing emergency for which they can ignore his immediate request for an attorney to procure information for the public health.

Look at it like this, imagine there's a murderer running through the streets killing people at random right now and you're his accomplice, cops can say "screw getting you a lawyer, we need to get this guy right now" and the testimony you give then will be allowed. and their refusal to acquiesce to your request will almost certainly be excused. So daze is right in that the right to counsel and the exception to the reading of Miranda Rights essentially go hand in hand here. Now, once this period has expired, it will be viewed much more harshly if this person is not provided with the counsel he desires. The issue really is that the government determines the scope of this public safety danger so who is to say what this supposed danger is, so it's a balancing act.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Not in this context they're not. They're necessarily intertwined in the instant case, you're incorrect.

Suspects only have a right to counsel only when they are facing offenses which will result in facing jail time as a starter. So yes, he has a right to counsel. But two things: (1) he was never formally charged with anything at the time of the questioning, and (2) the questioning at the time via the public safety exception basically makes it so that is was ongoing emergency for which they can ignore his immediate request for an attorney to procure information for the public health.

Look at it like this, imagine there's a murderer running through the streets killing people at random right now and you're his accomplice, cops can say "screw getting you a lawyer, we need to get this guy right now" and the testimony you give then will be allowed. and their refusal to acquiesce to your request will almost certainly be excused. So daze is right in that the right to counsel and the exception to the reading of Miranda Rights essentially go hand in hand here. Now, once this period has expired, it will be viewed much more harshly if this person is not provided with the counsel he desires. The issue really is that the government determines the scope of this public safety danger so who is to say what this supposed danger is, so it's a balancing act.

I understand why they would suspend it in that case (not sure if I like it, but understandable), but I'm not sure that the PSE should apply here.

By this point, he had already been arrested. Couldn't you say that, by that point, there's no threat to public safety (in fact, when they found him there was no threat to public safety, seeing as they needed to hospitalize him the moment he was arrested) and thus, there's no reason to act in accord with the Public Safety Exception (of course there's that awful FBI extension to deal with, but that's basically a junk justification to deprive suspects of rights because of the fact that it's a "terrorist" case that they're in)?

And, according to the Supreme Court, he was well within his right to ask for a lawyer, as "judicial proceedings" can be said to have been initiated against Tsarnaev the moment he was arrested and interrogated for the express purpose of obtaining information in a criminal case. They refused that request. In my reading of the situation, that's problematic.

 

[Blackking]

Not in this context they're not. They're necessarily intertwined in the instant case, you're incorrect.

Suspects only have a right to counsel only when they are facing offenses which will result in facing jail time as a starter. So yes, he has a right to counsel. But two things: (1) he was never formally charged with anything at the time of the questioning, and (2) the questioning at the time via the public safety exception basically makes it so that is was ongoing emergency for which they can ignore his immediate request for an attorney to procure information for the public health.

Look at it like this, imagine there's a murderer running through the streets killing people at random right now and you're his accomplice, cops can say "screw getting you a lawyer, we need to get this guy right now" and the testimony you give then will be allowed. and their refusal to acquiesce to your request will almost certainly be excused. So daze is right in that the right to counsel and the exception to the reading of Miranda Rights essentially go hand in hand here. Now, once this period has expired, it will be viewed much more harshly if this person is not provided with the counsel he desires. The issue really is that the government determines the scope of this public safety danger so who is to say what this supposed danger is, so it's a balancing act.

But isn't he charged.. and didn't they give him a defense?

 

[daze23]

By this point, he had already been arrested. Couldn't you say that, by that point, there's no threat to public safety (in fact, when they found him there was no threat to public safety, seeing as they needed to hospitalize him the moment he was arrested) and thus, there's no reason to act in accord with the Public Safety Exception (of course there's that awful FBI extension to deal with, but that's basically a junk justification to deprive suspects of rights because of the fact that it's a "terrorist" case that they're in)?

he could still have other accomplices, and/or other (possibly automated) devices out there

 

[daze23]

But isn't he charged.. and didn't they give him a defense?

yes, he's been charged and 'Mirandized' now. the question is about the time between when he was arrested and when he was charged

 

[TrueEpic08]

he could still have other accomplices, and/or other (possibly automated) devices out there

As could nearly any other suspect.

It's possible, but certainly nothing even close to enough in that situation to justify invoking a PSE at that point.

 

[MikelArteta]

I wish this man the best if he's innocent.

sent from royalty via tapatalk

 

[daze23]

As could nearly any other suspect.

It's possible, but certainly nothing even close to enough in that situation to justify invoking a PSE at that point.

I think that's easy to say in retrospect

what if he did have other accomplices, and/or other devices?

what situation would you say would justify invoking PSE? ("none" is a valid answer, but another subject)

 

[TrueEpic08]

I think that's easy to say in retrospect

what if he did have other accomplices, and/or other devices?

what situation would you say would justify invoking PSE? ("none" is a valid answer, but another subject)

Then you still couldn't do it, because you're acting on vague conjecture far removed from the actual situation. He's not killing anyone in his state.

For me to say that PSE is invokable, I would say that there has to be immediate and tangible danger to the public at large where the suspect is located/apprehended. And even then, the exception should be strictly limited to that danger. For example, if there was a suspect with a gun found in an open, populated supermarket, and the cops find the suspect without the gun, asking about anything related to the location of that gun is fine, because there's an immediate danger to the public safety involved.

(Basic example, but it does come from the case where the PSE was established.)

 

[Blackking]

yes, he's been charged and 'Mirandized' now. the question is about the time between when he was arrested and when he was charged

oh. ok.

Well of course, other than what you all are talking about his right to counsel going along with his right to have the rights read....

I believe the FBI and other agency can ask other question about the terror acts and about their motivations and future actions... but not have to hit them with the rights right away if they are a confirmed terror suspect.

 

[Type Username Here]

The government had the right to temporarily suspend his requests under the public safety exception to ensure it wasn't a part of a larger plan (i.e., immediate danger to the public). I don't see an issue here, but I don't know many details besides this.

Also, the suspect has the right to remain silent, even while PSE is exercised. If he said anything, he did it under his own volition.

 

[Blackking]

This is going to an interesting trial... I hope we are allowed to follow it.

 

[daze23]

Then you still couldn't do it, because you're acting on vague conjecture far removed from the actual situation. He's not killing anyone in his state.

For me to say that PSE is invokable, I would say that there has to be immediate and tangible danger to the public at large where the suspect is located/apprehended. And even then, the exception should be strictly limited to that danger. For example, if there was a suspect with a gun found in an open, populated supermarket, and the cops find the suspect without the gun, asking about anything related to the location of that gun is fine, because there's an immediate danger to the public safety involved.

(Basic example, but it does come from the case where the PSE was established.)

I don't think it is "vague conjecture far removed from the actual situation". at least not as far removed as thinking it's similar to "nearly any other suspect". he was (supposedly) responsible for bombing the Boston Marathon, and (supposedly) responsible for throwing bombs out a moving vehicle. I think it's safe to say there's a higher chance of him having other explosive devices, compared to a random criminal, that was arrested for something that had nothing to do with bombs

'other people' could be involved with many crimes, but it becomes relevant to PSE when those other people could present some real eminent threat. and again, I don't think it would be too far removed to imagine that in this situation

I mean, these are real things we're talking about here. real body parts being removed. this isn't an appeal to the idea that leaving a 'drug-dealer' on the streets presents an 'eminent threat'. I understand the slippery slope with regards to rights, but it's also a slippery slope with regards to life. I'm sure we can all think of a few sayings about 'liberty and death', but sometimes I really like living

 

[You Win Perfect]

the government doesn't follow rules they make them as they go along. they can tweak anything to fit any particular case. they will not be penalized or get in any sort of trouble because they are the government and no one polices them.

 

[Type Username Here]

the government doesn't follow rules they make them as they go along. they can tweak anything to fit any particular case. they will not be penalized or get in any sort of trouble because they are the government and no one polices them.

They seemed to have followed the rules on this one. Again, the PSE doesn't mean the suspect HAS to divulge ANY information. He can keep quiet. If the government tortures him for information, then they are breaking the law (which they have done in other cases, to your point).