Texas has a civil commitment law similar to the one described in Comstock, though I don't know whether this case will have implications for our state statute. And Florida v. Powell addresses whether Miranda warnings must inform defendants they have the right to have a lawyer present during a police interrogation; the Florida court answered yes so it's somewhat worrisome that SCOTUS would seek to review it.Docket: 08-1175
Title: Florida v. Powell
Issue: Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?
- Opinion below (08-1175, Supreme Court of Florida)
- Petition for certiorari (08-1175)
- Brief in opposition (08-1175)
Docket: 08-1224
Title: United States v. Comstock
Issue: Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) “sexually dangerous” persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) “sexually dangerous” persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
SCOTUS to review Miranda, civil commitments
Via SCOTUSBlog, I notice the Supreme Court this week agreed to hear two interesting looking criminal cases:
The civil commitment case appears to be solely concerned with the federal government's power to enact a civil commitment scheme (and really, why is the federal government fooling with this). Pity. The Texas scheme, which is grossly unfair and makes a sham of due process and civil commitment's official "goals," could use some attention from the federal courts. The elected judges in Texas from Conroe all the way up the line to the TXSC have thus far shown no interest in rocking the boat. It's high time the statutory scheme got some federal judicial review.
ReplyDeleteIt might be me, but I had always thought you were punished for crimes committed, not for those that someone THINKS you are going to commit. George Orwell was only two decades off...
ReplyDeleteWhile our society needs to be educated more on the Fifth's protection against self incrimination afforded to the innocent (and by consequence the guilty), the Miranda review I think is appropriate. The court, by setting their doctrine in Miranda is legislating from the bench if you're looking at their technical elements.
ReplyDeletewe often confine those who are mentally ill and at risk for harming themselves or others. The civil commitment laws require the presence of a mental disorder (e.g., pedophilia) which places someone at high risk for harming someone else.
ReplyDeleteThis federal program seems totally unnecessary. I don't see why pedophilia of all things should need federal intervention.
ReplyDeleteA Miranda warning is given only during a "custodial interrogation". Is this a SCOTUS decision? Police find out everything they want or need during what they call an "interview" and they do use whatever you say against you at trial. When you ask for a lawyer, they say: "you don't need one. You're not under arrest". Will the SCOTUS do anything to fix this injustice? You might just as well not have miranda. The yogurt shop confessions were coerced during an "interrogation".
ReplyDeleteGrandmom: I meant to say that the yogurt shop confessions were coerced during an "interview".
ReplyDelete