----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:24 PM Subject: Re: No more Miranda?
> The heading is misleading. The SCt upheld Miranda
> againsta direct attack last term. Miranda warnings
> will continue to have to be read to criminal
> defendants. The present attack is in a civil rights
> excessive force civil rights case context, where a
> plaintiff, shot and paralyzed by the police, made an
> unfortunate admission (that he'd grabbed for a cop's
> gun) under questioning without a Miranda. The cops
> want the statement in to show that the force was not
> excessive. He wants it out because he wasn't
> Mirandized.
>
> 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
>
=====================
How can you know the admission is true if it's coerced? The guy was shot in the face. If I was shot in the face I'd be saying anything to a cop using his power to interfere with pain relief to get me to talk. How about you? Or would you be thinking about the correspondence theory of truth at that point?
Ian