Court: Rights don't have to be read to prisoners
Recent Cases
The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in "custody" as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.
"Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion.
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners.
"Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: 'You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,'" Ginsburg said in her dissent. "Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights."
Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave.
Related listings
-
Lower Chinese court rules shops should pull iPads
Recent Cases 02/20/2012Apple's dispute over the iPad trademark deepened Monday after the Chinese company that claims ownership of the name said it won a court ruling against sales of the popular tablet computer in China. Xie Xianghui, a lawyer for Shenzhen Proview Technolo...
-
NY appeals court orders NJ programmer's acquittal
Recent Cases 02/17/2012A federal appeals court on Friday reversed the conviction of a former Goldman Sachs programmer on charges he stole computer code, ordering an acquittal in a case that tested the boundaries of what can be considered a crime as companies seek to protec...
-
Web sites need not check for IP breaches
Recent Cases 02/16/2012A European Union court ruled Thursday that social networking sites cannot be compelled to install general filters to prevent the illegal trading of music and other copyrighted material. The decision is a victory for operators of social networking sit...
CHICAGO BUSINESS & CORPORATE LITIGATION LAWYERS
When faced with a legal challenge, your attorneys should help you identify your goals at the beginning of the process. Thereafter, every action that follows must be undertaken with the aim of meeting those goals. Wasted effort equals wasted time and money, that’s something you cannot afford and your attorneys must respect this concept. At Roth Law Group, we counsel our clients to confront their legal challenges aggressively, but with purpose.
As a former Marine Corps Pilot, I learned that you must assess the situation, determine your mission, construct a plan to achieve the mission and execute that plan. As an attorney and small business owner, I apply the same concepts in taking on my client’s legal challenges. And while it is generally preferable to resolve cases early in the process whenever possible, if you have no choice but to fight, you need someone who is willing to aggressively advocate for you. Here at Roth Law Group, we never back down from a challenge and we fight to win. Let our experienced attorneys put you in control of your legal challenges so you can get back to running your business.