Supreme Court debates Miranda Warnings again
Chicago Law Enforcement Examiner 

On Monday, the Supreme Court began debating on whether the Miranda warning rights should be made clearer for criminal suspects. The case that has brought this debate to the highest court is Florida v. Powell.
It all began with Kevin Dwayne Powell being arrested for having in his possession a firearm that he freely confessed to buying off the street. Powell signed a Miranda statement waiving his right to a lawyer. Powell's lawyer, Deborah Brueckheimer said that the warnings Powell was given from the Tampa, Fla., police was not clearly explained to him.


The Miranda Warnings stems from a landmark case of (Miranda v. Arizona 1966) a 25-year-old man by the name of Ernesto Miranda. He was mentally handicap and arrested for kidnapping and rape. In the police station, he was positively identified as the offender and after two hours of interrogation, he signed a written confession. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison and his conviction was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state's decision (5-4) and established that the Fifth Amendment had been violated because the majority stated that privilege against self-incrimination requires that a criminal suspect in custody or in any other manner deprived of freedom must be informed of his or her rights.
Now the Supreme Court will debate whether the police should be even more clearer in administering The Miranda Rights.

It has been over 43 years since this landmark case was decided and the debate continues today. Maybe the Court should just allow every suspect to have an attorney every time they are arrested, this will alleviate the back and forth nonsense of whether police officers are clear or not clear enough in telling every suspect that they have the right to keep their mouth shut.
http://www.examiner.com/x-10377-Chicago-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Supreme-Court-debates-Miranda-Warnings-again

Supreme Court appears split on tackling rogue prosecutors
The Supreme Court Wednesday heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by
two Iowa men who spent 25 in prison after prosecutors allegedly
fabricated evidence against them. Justices seemed divided on the
issue of how much immunity prosecutors should enjoy.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 4, 2009 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1105/p02s01-usju.html

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on Wednesday took up the difficult
issue of what to do about unscrupulous prosecutors willing to induce
false testimony and hide exculpatory evidence to convict innocent
defendants.

At issue in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee is whether two men sent to
prison for life are entitled to sue the local prosecutors in Iowa who
helped arrange false testimony that led to their wrongful convictions.

Both men served 25 years in prison before being released after
investigators discovered the false testimony and uncovered
exculpatory evidence never disclosed to defense lawyers.

The high court has long recognized that prosecutors presenting a case
at trial enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits seeking
compensation for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.

But the court has also recognized that a prosecutor may not enjoy the
protections of absolute immunity when serving not as a trial advocate
but as an investigator searching for clues and corroboration that a
crime has been committed.

During oral argument on Wednesday, the justices split into three
camps. In one camp were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul
Stevens, and Sonia Sotomayor, who appeared primarily concerned with
ensuring that victims of such prosecutorial misconduct have a
potential remedy through a civil lawsuit.

In another camp were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel
Alito who appeared primarily concerned with the potentially "chilling
impact" on all prosecutors if the court allowed some defendants to
file such citizen lawsuits.

In the center were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and
Antonin Scalia who appeared to share the concerns of both other camps.

Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, arguing in support of absolute
immunity for the two prosecutors, said the government's position was
based on important societal concerns that prosecutors feel free to
act as vigorous advocates.

"Absolute immunity doesn't exist to protect a few bad apples," Mr.
Katyal said. If prosecutors know they may be sued by disgruntled
defendants "they will flinch in the performance of their duties."

Paul Clement, a former solicitor general arguing on behalf of the two
wrongly-convicted defendants, said the federal appeals court in New
York has allowed such citizen lawsuits against prosecutors since
2000. "There has not been a flood of these cases," he said. "There
has been a trickle."

Mr. Clement said he had identified 17 cases brought since the 2000
appeals court action.

Chief Justice Roberts said his concerns went beyond just potential
litigation. "We are concerned about the chilling effect on the
prosecutors," he said.

Stephen Sanders, a Chicago lawyer representing the two former
prosecutors, urged the court to maintain an expansive application of
absolute immunity for all prosecutors.

He warned that if the high court ruled for the two wrongly-convicted
defendants, "it would work a radical change in the law of immunity."

A decision in the case is expected by June 2010.

Justice Matters

GOOD NEWS FOR JUSTICE FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court ruling shakes up criminal trials

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-crime-labs26-2009jul26,0,420958.story

From the Los Angeles Times

Cases have been thrown out and doubts linger after last month's
decision giving defendants the right to question forensic technicians in court.
By David G. Savage

July 26, 2009

Reporting from Washington — Until last month, the strongest evidence
in drug and drunk driving cases in courtrooms across the nation often
was a piece of paper. A crime lab or Breathalyzer report would
confirm that the defendant indeed had illegal drugs or a high level
of alcohol in his or her system.

But a Supreme Court decision has sent a jolt through that procedure.

Now the prosecution must make a lab technician available to testify
in person if the defendant demands it. As a result, some cases
already have been dismissed. One state, Virginia, has called a
special legislative session to change its laws. And some lawyers
think the ruling will continue to have a major effect.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court said that lab reports served as
“witnesses” for the prosecution. And because the 6th Amendment gives
defendants a right to "be confronted with the witnesses against him,"
Justice Antonin Scalia said that drug defendants and others were
"entitled to be confronted with the [lab] analysts at trial."

While Scalia said the decision upheld the basic right to question the
prosecution's witnesses, the four dissenters said the ruling had
"vast potential to disrupt" the criminal courts. They also said it
gave "a great windfall" to defendants, some of whom could have their
cases dismissed because a lab technician was not available to testify.

Some prosecutors have said they fear the uncertainty -- and the
potential cost -- of being required to have lab technicians ready to
testify.

"This is a train wreck in the making," said Scott Burns, executive
director of the National District Attorneys Assn. "The court is
saying you can't submit an affidavit saying that the cocaine is
cocaine. The criminalist must be there to testify the cocaine is
cocaine. Particularly in rural states and in smaller communities,
this is going to be a major problem."

In Virginia, several judges in the last month have dismissed drunk
driving charges against motorists because technicians were not in
court to testify about how a Breathalyzer was calibrated. Gov. Tim
Kaine has called the Legislature into a one-day special session to
pass a bill, similar to laws in dozens of states, that will put
defendants and their lawyers on notice before a trial that a lab
report will be submitted as evidence. The defense lawyer then would
have a duty to tell prosecutors whether a lab tech must be there to
testify.

The court's decision also raised questions. For example, is the
required witness the lab technician who ran an evidence sample
through a machine, or the expert who programmed or calibrated the
machine?

It is also not clear what happens in cases in which the lab expert is
not available. "What are you supposed to do if your ballistic expert
moved from Cleveland to Phoenix prior to the trial?" Burns said.

"We are particularly concerned about prosecuting cold cases," said
Lael Rubin, a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles, because the
lab experts who worked on old crimes may no longer be available. She
said the decision could force the retesting of old samples, assuming
they can be tested.

Perhaps the biggest question is how many defendants will take
advantage of this new right. More than 9 in 10 drug cases end in a
plea bargain, not a trial before a jury.

Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, who won the case before the
high court, said states such as California routinely bring crime
experts to trials. Other states require prosecutors and defense
lawyers to agree in advance what kinds of evidence will be submitted.
"It may take a little while, but people will figure this out," Fisher
said.

Some defense lawyers predicted the effect of the ruling would be
minimal.

"It will be the rare case where this comes into play," said Steve
Benjamin, a criminal defense lawyer in Richmond, Va. "It will be
unusual for a defense lawyer to insist on live testimony. All you are
doing in those situations is emphasizing the evidence that
incriminates your client."

He and other defense lawyers, however, emphasized that crime labs had
made mistakes that had sent the innocent to prison. For example,
reports on hair samples and bite marks have been shown to be
exaggerated or false. In some cases, they said, it is crucial to
question a crime lab expert to expose doubts about the evidence.

And the high court may not be finished with the issue. On the last
day before the summer recess, the justices voted to hear a Virginia
case to decide whether the prosecutor or the defense lawyer had the
duty to call a lab expert as a witness.

It was a curious move, since a 5-4 majority had ruled just days
before that the prosecutor had a duty, if asked, to present live
testimony from a lab technician. But that majority included now-
retired Justice David H. Souter, leaving open the possibility that a
new justice -- Sonia Sotomayor, if she is confirmed -- could tilt the
court in a different direction.  david.savage@latimes.com

****************************

Thank GOD!  That number - 5 to 4 - is the same number that denied inmates the right to post-conviction DNA testing in June.  Now that same Supreme Court ratio is delving out JUSTICE!  Thank you, justices.

Mary Neal
Assistance to the Incarcerated Mentally Ill
http://www.Care2.com/c2c/group/AIMI