Actually I'm surprised that there's an issue. I would have guessed that the statement's admissible because it's relevant and an admission (so not hearsay); the heightened protection accorded a criminal defendant wouldn't obviously kick in a civil context, where the burden of proof and the stakes are lower. (I mean, the guy's not only not going to jail, he not going to lose money, just not get money that he otherwise might win. And it's unfortunate that he was paralyzed, but if he grabbed for a cop's gun, I mean, how stupid can you get? ANd is it excessive force to shoot someone who grabs for your gun?)
I bet that's how it comes out, but I would not describe that as the "end of Miranda," which was not meant to protect civil plaintiffs, at least originally. Does this mean that I'm getting more conservative?
jks
--- joanna bujes <joanna.bujes at ebay.sun.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021202/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_questioning_4
> >
> >Supreme Court Could End Miranda Warnings
> >
> >"...A ruling that minimizes defendants' rights
> would be useful to the Bush
> >administration, which supports Oxnard's appeal, in
> its questioning of
> >terrorism suspects, experts said."
>
>
> >"The...appeal argues that...the 14th Amendment
> guarantee of due process of
> >law is violated only if the questioning of a
> suspect is so excessive that
> >it 'shocks the conscience' of the community."
>
> Joanna
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com