in your expert and surely unbiased opinion, what percentage of people in jail are regular, mentally stable individuals who had absolutely no involvement in the crime they were convicted of. Furthermore, what percentage of those people would have been guaranteed to get off if they had contacted a lawyer before the police decided to railroad them because they were in portland while a crime happened there

why do you always insist on straw manning every argument? can you really not do better?

just read two posts above yours ffs

I wasn't Mirandized and didn't make statements of my own accord. IOW, I answered a policeman's questions w/o having my rights read to me first. In private, btw, no prosecutor or other witnesses present.

so first instance someone didnt tell the truth when talking to the police and it got her in trouble. if you are going to lie then yes, you probably shouldnt talk

second story is a criminal who was guilty of the parole violation and admitted to it. not an example of an innocent person.

neither of these anecdotes consitute proof that you should "never" talk, only that there are cases in which not talking is best which no one disagrees with

She didn't lie, she just got a detail wrong. And she didn't know their true intent. Which is why you shouldn't talk to the police.

Good lord, speed-reading for counterpoints.

its almost unbelievable that this is really what you take from the first story. virtually everyone will "lie" at some point on at least some seemingly minor detail when interrogated for 4+ hours by trained professionals trying only to get you to lie. there is no reason to needlessly expose yourself to this danger.

Not telling the truth is not telling the truth whether intentional or not. If you have no idea wtf you are talking about then yeah its probably not a good idea to guess when talking to them.

Do you believe the lack of a Miranda is relevant should they decide to charge you?

I will stand for correction but I think that any answer I give to a policeperson's question w/o having first been Mirandized is inadmissable which is why they read you your rights immediately when you're going to be charged. That's the whole point of a Miranda warning. A voluntary statement, otoh, is.

Howard,

I believe the key is that you have to be a suspect at the time. Since they were questioning you about other events and you admitted to a crime it would be admissible. IANAL so i guess we'll hear from the esteemed law firm of oot, wikipedia and somebody told me sometime.

If it was not obvious, that was a loaded question. You are pretty much the shining example of why you do not ****ing talk to the cops in such a situation without a lawyer. Everything you have written is dead wrong and could have resulted in you going to jail.

according to law and order stabn is correct

you cant just say "oh btw i killed someone two nights ago" and it be inadmissable without miranda

Howard,

They can get you to say something prior to Miranda, read your rights, and then just go back over your previous statement (having your say yes/no) and then that statement is in. Now there is a SCOTUS case that puts restrictions on this, but the police still employ this technique (watched them use it on a hysterical 13-year-old from an arrest this past summer.)

I'll try to find the case and specific restrictions to this tomorrow, can't remember off the top of my head which kind of makes me since I referred to it repeatedly for that above situation.

Edit: Finally, Missouri v. Siebert. The pattern I described (confession-Miranda-confession) produces admissible statements if curative measures are taken. Basically you have to insure that a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would understand the import and effect of the Miranda warning or of the Miranda waiver. Generally this can be done by waiting a while between the confessions or actually physically moving the suspect to a new location (i.e. the stationhouse) that would further enforce the gravity of the situation.

That is correct if I am not under police custody. Standing in a hallway dressed only in my pants surrounded by cops conducting a raid? I have my argument as to whether or not that consitutes custody as I am clearly not allowed to simply leave.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/cri...da_rights.html

Did you ask if you could leave?

Ok, that trick wouldn't work on me.

lol, no, they weren't done w/ any of us, there's no leaving. They are doing an investigation. They gather everybody up, record the info from your ID and take your picture. I'm going w/ that is in custody.

Siebert was arrested and in custody when the confession was obtained, correct?

The gift that keeps on giving.

Sorry, but not going to waste any more of my precious time on you unless of course you want to pay my hourly rate...lol.

Howard you don't know what you're talking about. It's tedious to explain all of the legal definitions of the words you're misusing but it's obvious from the stuff you're saying in this thread that you personally should never, ever talk to the police. You have a tiny bit of info, a ton of misinformation and a trusting attitude.

And you are so trusting of Police that you think they'd never lie about whether or not they'd given you a Miranda warning? LOL

It's probably just the syphilis talking.