the miranda act was to prevent this situation…the suspect has a right to an attorney…now calling a relative, not familiar iowa law, so i can’t relate why that is important to someone being asked questions, considering that the relative in most case is probably not a lawyer and has no precedent what he/she cud do for the suspect.
he asked, so we shud have obliged..what is so hard about that…anything said after that shud not be used against him, everything prior shud be…
I just hope they’re able to turn the other defendant, Miquel Jones, to State’s Witness and use his testimony. Prosecutors should still be able to get a conviction even without the confession at that point.
I understand why the rules are in place, why they’re important and all that but this guy seems like he’s not saying he didn’t do it or that he was forced to make a confession, he’s just saying that if he’d talked with a lawyer he would have been able to plea to a lesser charge. (You’ll probably never hear me say this again but) we need more criminal trial lawers and judges not willing to accept pleas and more jails to lock these people up.
sure you can’t believe he is going to have enough to say to convince me otherwise. by all those folks whom he thought he knew, has moved their locations, changed phone numbers and various others means so as to be remembered or followed by this fiasco….
sure, the judge shud have not accepted the plea agreement and sentence him accordingly…he flat out admitted being in charge of the operation and included his help with killing some of the dogs…what more do you need?
as far as this guy is concerned, um…did he not tell his former girlfriend his actions? so why can’t we use that along with the other fella and convict him?
I’m not saying killing a dog (or several as he’s admitted) is the same as killing a person and setting fire to the body to destroy evidence. But Michael needs to go away for a long time.
Instead of this trend of sentancing celebrities and idols to short sentances in fluff jails we should be locking them up in the worst holes we can find. That’ll make them REAL role models, then when they get out they can talk about how bad it was, that’ll do more than the few hours of community service that usually take the place of the years “normal” people would have gotten.
I could not agree with you more…why shud they serve a shorter sentence? if it was me or you, they wud throw the whole book at as and let the back page hit us with a neverending clause! it truly amazes me that celeb’s can get special privi’s because they are celeb’s or rich…good example is the lady – martha stewart…she was even allowed to go to work 1 day a week….what?! that was totally unfair…again, me or you, in jail w/o a key to life outside..
It’s sad the felons are let go because of the cops failure to provide the Miranda warning. Everyone knows about the Miranda warning so why don’t the cops get it right the first time and then there will be no situations like this? Not that I’m rooting for the bad guy here but have the cops do their job correctly….
The problem is that the Miranda ruling is just another in a long line of instances where the federal government is telling the states, or even cities and counties, how to conduct their affairs. If the courts want to constrain federal law inforcement agencies with such a rule, that’s fine. But there is no warrant in the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment) for a Miranda-like requirement binding non-federal law enforcement agencies.
The fact that Miranda was recently upheald by the Supreme Court does not mean that the court or Miranda are correct. We just have to live with it.
problem is that even if the rights were read, when he said i wanted to talk w/my lawyer, — it shud have stopped there and gotten him is lawyer….as far as the relative, that can happen after the question if allowable under the iowan law…but since they did not allow him a laywer, oops they goofed! — why is it so hard to understand..he asked and they did not comply…now they have to do it the hard way…conviction based on evidence!…
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
“Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to talk to your brother…”
the miranda act was to prevent this situation…the suspect has a right to an attorney…now calling a relative, not familiar iowa law, so i can’t relate why that is important to someone being asked questions, considering that the relative in most case is probably not a lawyer and has no precedent what he/she cud do for the suspect.
he asked, so we shud have obliged..what is so hard about that…anything said after that shud not be used against him, everything prior shud be…
I just hope they’re able to turn the other defendant, Miquel Jones, to State’s Witness and use his testimony. Prosecutors should still be able to get a conviction even without the confession at that point.
I understand why the rules are in place, why they’re important and all that but this guy seems like he’s not saying he didn’t do it or that he was forced to make a confession, he’s just saying that if he’d talked with a lawyer he would have been able to plea to a lesser charge. (You’ll probably never hear me say this again but) we need more criminal trial lawers and judges not willing to accept pleas and more jails to lock these people up.
does that incl the michael vick case?
sure you can’t believe he is going to have enough to say to convince me otherwise. by all those folks whom he thought he knew, has moved their locations, changed phone numbers and various others means so as to be remembered or followed by this fiasco….
sure, the judge shud have not accepted the plea agreement and sentence him accordingly…he flat out admitted being in charge of the operation and included his help with killing some of the dogs…what more do you need?
as far as this guy is concerned, um…did he not tell his former girlfriend his actions? so why can’t we use that along with the other fella and convict him?
How in the world should he be exonorated because he wasn’t allowed to call his brother? What has that to do with the facts of the case?
As for Miranda, it is estimated that as many as 28,000 confessed violent felons go free each year because of technical violations of the Miranda rule.
http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_lawyer/issues/59/feature2.html
Even if it’s one fifth as many, is that ok with you?
Of course it includes Michael Vick.
I’m not saying killing a dog (or several as he’s admitted) is the same as killing a person and setting fire to the body to destroy evidence. But Michael needs to go away for a long time.
Instead of this trend of sentancing celebrities and idols to short sentances in fluff jails we should be locking them up in the worst holes we can find. That’ll make them REAL role models, then when they get out they can talk about how bad it was, that’ll do more than the few hours of community service that usually take the place of the years “normal” people would have gotten.
I could not agree with you more…why shud they serve a shorter sentence? if it was me or you, they wud throw the whole book at as and let the back page hit us with a neverending clause! it truly amazes me that celeb’s can get special privi’s because they are celeb’s or rich…good example is the lady – martha stewart…she was even allowed to go to work 1 day a week….what?! that was totally unfair…again, me or you, in jail w/o a key to life outside..
It’s sad the felons are let go because of the cops failure to provide the Miranda warning. Everyone knows about the Miranda warning so why don’t the cops get it right the first time and then there will be no situations like this? Not that I’m rooting for the bad guy here but have the cops do their job correctly….
The problem is that the Miranda ruling is just another in a long line of instances where the federal government is telling the states, or even cities and counties, how to conduct their affairs. If the courts want to constrain federal law inforcement agencies with such a rule, that’s fine. But there is no warrant in the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment) for a Miranda-like requirement binding non-federal law enforcement agencies.
The fact that Miranda was recently upheald by the Supreme Court does not mean that the court or Miranda are correct. We just have to live with it.
problem is that even if the rights were read, when he said i wanted to talk w/my lawyer, — it shud have stopped there and gotten him is lawyer….as far as the relative, that can happen after the question if allowable under the iowan law…but since they did not allow him a laywer, oops they goofed! — why is it so hard to understand..he asked and they did not comply…now they have to do it the hard way…conviction based on evidence!…