Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.
.jpg)
- Blawg Wisdom
- Evan Smith, Editor-in-chief and publisher, The Texas Tribune
- The Austin Chronicle
- Emily Bazelon, Slate
- San Antonio Current
- Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic
- Erica Grieder, The Economist
- Pamela Colloff, Texas Monthly
- Doug Berman, Sentencing Law & Policy
- Marie Gottschalk, author of 'Caught'
- DallasBlog
- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project
- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent
- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties
-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe
- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog
Tommy Adkisson,
Bexar County Commissioner
- Dirty Third Streets
- Texas Public Policy Foundation
David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"
John Bradley,
Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau
- To the People
Contact: gritsforbreakfast AT gmail.com
9 comments:
How about when the jail is overcrowded and inmates are placed on GPS house arrest to "relieve overcrowding?" According to statute they are to be credited time served the same as if in the jailhouse. Would that mean they are still considered in jail since they are under jail supervision?
What is the legal ruling regarding the Miranda reading? If warrant is out and person turns theirself in and thus in jail, but never read the Miranda Rights, what does that mean? Does officer have to sign something when they read the Miranda to a person?
This seems very odd, considering that probation officers are obligated to read the Miranda Warning to probationers when being questioned about new offense violations, otherwise the statements made by the probationer can be thrown out of court during either the hearing for the new offense or the probation violation hearing. I'm very confused, but then again that's just another day in CJ.
Grits, "term of art" is much too generous of you. This is nothing more nor less than rank sophistry, being utilized by SCOTUS to chip away at Miranda.
Instances of this kind of legal bamboozeling appear all through case law: "Shall" has been held by the Texas Supreme Court to really mean "may" in some instances. People are not "arrested," they are "detained." A Terry "pat-down" is not a search and therefore requires neither warrant nor probable cause. Lignite strip mine operators "use" pumped ground water as part of mining operations -- water they might have to otherwise pay for -- by dumping it into ditches and creeks to go to waste. Water which would appear to be wasted in violation of the Texas Water Code, is not "wasted" when transported in an open ditch even though as much as 75% of it evaporates before reaching its intended destination.
These are the few which come to mind after 40 years of reading Texas and SCOTUS court reports. I'm hoping someone will one day do some intensive research and come up with a great article on this particular form of judicial arrogance. Courts resort to this kind of aggravating, insulting sophistry to reach decisions they could not otherwise get to but by changing the plain meaning of words.
12:01 Yes, I believe so.
1:09 No, but a witness would be a good idea
Texas PO If thats true then why not the police??
I personally feel the court is in error, but I dont get to change their decisions. BUT, if it is true that he was told several times he was free to go and not required to talk to them , he is guilty of 1st degree stupidity.
Even Duct tape cant fix stupid.
The reality is that if the police are asking if they can talk to you, it is BECAUSE they have to. Rule #1 for people in jail: Talk to NO ONE except for your counsel ever for any reason.
i have to agree. This bit of CRIMINAL STUPIDITY is right up there with "Even though your in handcuffs on the side of the street. Your NOT under arrest"
sorry both are either what they appear to be or they are CRIMINAL restraint and/or inprisonment and the individual involved has every legal and moral right to get away how ever and whoever they have to hurt to do it!
...dafuq???
How can this possibly square with the SCOTUS ruling in U.S. v. Mendenhall?
United States v Conley allows some room to consider a person in prison to not be in "custody". Totality of circumstances, yacky yacky.
I tell my students that you can never Mirandize enough. OK, maybe somebody will find a way to overdo it...
Post a Comment