Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vsjjgv$23eui$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Partially remaining silent held against defendant in Arizona
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 08:01:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <vsjjgv$23eui$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsje73$1se8h$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:01:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cc31441a003879b21be4f40e84dc6c";
	logging-data="2210770"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pNIekO5PBwPuOV19oU2Ry"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U7Z7lABxdat5fQ6hfuCWQFlgGDM=
In-Reply-To: <vsje73$1se8h$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 4/2/2025 6:31 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Arizona Supreme Court drives wedge in right to remain silent. However, I
> don't know enough about trial procedure to understand if the prosecution
> made errors here.
> 
> In 2019, in a parking lot outside a church service, a man saw the
> pastor's son, asked him if he were the pastor's son, then shot at him
> twice. Fortunately he missed both shots. He was taken into custody
> by policy and Mirandized before being questioned. The first time, the
> perpetrator invoked his right to remain silent. He was Mirandized and
> questioned a second time; it's not clear if this was the same day or the
> next day. He was inforned that he was going to jail. He offered to answer
> some questions but not others. He claimed self defense,
> 
> Part of the problem is that the article Steve Lehto is commenting on
> doesn't make everything clear about what happened at trial. The man
> claimed self defense at trial and took the stand. Now, once he took the
> stand, in cross examination, the prosecution was able to ask him about
> questions of the police he had not answered. In closing arguments, the
> prosecution reminded the jury how not answering those questions made him
> look guilty.
> 
> This isn't clear to me. Despite having been Mirandized twoice, are the
> police allowed to start a second round of questioning?
> 
As long as he hadn't invoked the right to have an attorney representing 
him present, yes.  This actually happens a lot.

> At trial, if he hadn't taken the stand, would the prosecution have been
> allowed to raise the issue in closing arguments that he hadn't answered
> certain police questions?

I suspect it would depend on whether or not they had called the 
interrogating peace officer to the stand and had them testify about what 
the suspect did and did not answer.

> Even before Miranda rights were significantly
> narrowed, if the defendant takes the stand, was the prosecution
> restricted from raising the fact that he answered some questions and not
> others in cross examination and closing argument?
> 
> I'm not sure if the right to remain silent has been further narrowed or
> not here.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuTI4LeJkRk


-- 
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky 
dirty old man.