In jail, but not 'in custody'

Liberty and Justice for Y'all has the story of a recent US Supreme Court case ruling that an inmate questioned while in jail for an unrelated crime is not "in custody" for purposes of requiring a Miranda warning. Talk about a term of art, when you can be in jail, but not "in custody"!

SCOTUS to review Miranda, civil commitments

Via SCOTUSBlog, I notice the Supreme Court this week agreed to hear two interesting looking criminal cases:

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.

• Opinion below (4th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

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.