Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer were ignored

[TrueEpic08]

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

What you're doing in that second paragraph is what I mean by "vague conjecture." There was no evidence whatsoever that, even if they were working with someone else or had additional bombs (and I don't think you can act on that at all without surpassing a pretty extensive burden of proof), that they presented such an immediate threat to the safety of the public that they couldn't read him his rights and accede to his request for a lawyer before questioning him about it. You just can't work on the slimmest possibility of something in that way, because it inevitably leads to abuse and discrimination.

When I say "vague conjecture," I don't mean it in the same immaterial way that got Tyler's Mountain Dew ad pulled, but in attempting to extend a situation with either implausible or plausible, but not immediate, scenarios in such a way to blatantly bend the letter of the law. That's what's happening with this extension of the PSE, exemplified in this situation.

 

[TrueEpic08]

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

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).

This is always the complicating factor in cases like these, isn't it? I don't think they really followed the PSE rule, but if Tsarnaev really wanted a lawyer that badly, he shouldn't have said anything (even if it's an extra-legal interrogation, it still is an interrogation. You're allowed to shut up and plead the 5th, if you'd like)

But then again, I'm not sure the mentality of a scared 19-year-old would think of that.

 

[Type Username Here]

This is always the complicating factor in cases like these, isn't it? I don't think they really followed the PSE rule, but if Tsarnaev really wanted a lawyer that badly, he shouldn't have said anything (even if it's an extra-legal interrogation, it still is an interrogation. You're allowed to shut up and plead the 5th, if you'd like)

But then again, I'm not sure the mentality of a scared 19-year-old would think of that.

Fair enough. One could argue that this is the point of giving someone their Miranda rights, to notify them that they can remain silent.

But I think it would be common sense to just keep quiet.

As soon as you say "I didn't do it..." or "We did it alone" under your own volition, you are fukked.

Just keep your mouth closed. If they have to torture you, now you at least have something to stand on.

To be clear, I'm not trying to help this a$$hole or a$$holes like him go free, but this needs to be said in the very rare case that this person was really set-up or apprehended erroneously.

 

[No1]

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.

The public safety exception or the public safety doctrine in other states doesn't work like that. You yourself do not have to be the threat. There just needs to be an existing threat that he's connected to. Thus, they will argue that they needed to know if he needed dangerous accomplices, etc. Your position works if it's about him individually.

He was not interrogated specifically for the purpose of using the information against him in criminal proceedings. That's the thing. The court will have to perform the balancing act, but they haven't ruled against the government in these cases very often. If the courts ask what threats exactly because they're not satisfied, I can imagine the state secrets privilege being used. The judge will have to perform a pretty complicated balancing act.

 

[No1]

BTW, another prominent lawyer has been added to his team. Judy Clarke, but she'll probably just be trying to avoid the death penalty for him.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Fair enough. One could argue that this is the point of giving someone their Miranda rights, to notify them that they can remain silent.

But I think it would be common sense to just keep quiet.

As soon as you say "I didn't do it..." or "We did it alone" under your own volition, you are fukked.

Just keep your mouth closed. If they have to torture you, now you at least have something to stand on.

To be clear, I'm not trying to help this a$$hole or a$$holes like him go free, but this needs to be said in the very rare case that this person was really set-up or apprehended erroneously.

Depends on your definition of "under your own volition." In my opinion, being interrogated, extra-judicially or not, is coercive. Thus, it SHOULD be regarded as inadmissible and thrown out (And yes, a situation like this is the reason why Miranda Rights were invented and why they needed to be read to this kid).

With that said, there's absolutely no way that would ever happen in a case like this (they'd twist an interpretation of a previous Supreme Court ruling before letting someone like this go). But I do believe that getting the process right is more important than convicting the suspect based on heightened emotion and hatred, due to the fact that this sets precedent. If you don't get him the right way, even if he did do it, then what happens when you get someone who didn't do it that could and would be tried via the same method? The precedent's already set; that guy would be screwed.

 

[No1]

Depends on your definition of "under your own volition." In my opinion, being interrogated, extra-judicially or not, is coercive. Thus, it SHOULD be regarded as inadmissible and thrown out (And yes, a situation like this is the reason why Miranda Rights were invented and why they needed to be read to this kid).

You're absolutely right. What you just articulated is the very basis of Miranda. Still, the definition of the standard that you were using before was limiting the public safety exception to his agency and that's not how it's applied. Even with the Nigerian kid it was used to get intel on Yemen. Those people aren't about to his us the next day most likely. So once you extend it that far, then you're getting more and more abstract and it's hard to see how this wouldn't fit into that same exception.

 

[Type Username Here]

Depends on your definition of "under your own volition." In my opinion, being interrogated, extra-judicially or not, is coercive.

I disagree but I understand.

But I do believe that getting the process right is more important than convicting the suspect based on heightened emotion and hatred, due to the fact that this sets precedent. If you don't get him the right way, even if he did do it, then what happens when you get someone who didn't do it that could and would be tried via the same method? The precedent's already set; that guy would be screwed.

That's the whole point of the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

 

[TrueEpic08]

The public safety exception or the public safety doctrine in other states doesn't work like that. You yourself do not have to be the threat. There just needs to be an existing threat that he's connected to. Thus, they will argue that they needed to know if he needed dangerous accomplices, etc. Your position works if it's about him individually.

He was not interrogated specifically for the purpose of using the information against him in criminal proceedings. That's the thing. The court will have to perform the balancing act, but they haven't ruled against the government in these cases very often. If the courts ask what threats exactly because they're not satisfied, I can imagine the state secrets privilege being used. The judge will have to perform a pretty complicated balancing act.

I understand that he's not the threat himself, but even in that situation, it's still too murky for me to say that he shouldn't be read his rights and allowed a lawyer. Too vague, too imagined for my tastes.

Of course, not in a million years will a US court throw out evidence in this case. Just to know, what were the cases where courts ruled against the government in situations like these?

And in regard to the other quote, Abdulmutallab was read his Mirandas when there was a more immediate case of being connected with a dangerous element (Al-Qaeda, which also speaks to the murkiness of all of this, since questions such as "What's Anwar Al-Awlaki's connection to Al-Quaeda, if there is any?" and "Does Al-Awlaki pose any type of immediate, material danger to the United States?" needed to be asked, and those are questions that we really still don't have concrete answers to, almost 2 years after Al-Awlaki was killed), and he ended up cooperating just fine. Which is a part of the reason why I believe that Tzarnaev should have been read his rights and allowed a lawyer.

 

[TrueEpic08]

That's the whole point of the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

Yes, but applying the PSE incorrectly violates the 5th and 6th Amendments, and would most likely lead to a violation of the 8th. That's why you have to get it right.

 

[Mensch Fontana]

God bless the patriot act