A question about Miranda warnings

[SMR 368]

For a while the government didn't mirandize Dzokhar Tsarnaev. I'm trying to figure out what this really means. As I understand it, the Miranda warning does not confer rights but rather inform the arrested individual of rights that he or she already inherently has. As such, not mirandizing a suspect does one thing: it makes anything that the person does say inadmissible in court.

The so called public safety exemption just means that if the situation makes it unsafe or impractical to mirandize the suspect immediately then statements made by the suspect may still be used in court against the suspect. The trial case for this involved a cop arresting a suspect that he had reason to believe was armed. He asked where the suspect's gun was as his holster was empty and the suspect responded. Insofar as safety dictated that the priority was to find the gun before mirandizing the suspect, the suspect's response to the questions about his gun were still admissible in court.

Apply that to the case of Dzokhar Tsarnaev and you can reasonably assert that you might apprehend him without mirandizing him immediately if you don't know if he's armed, has a bomb, isn't alone, etc. But by the time you get him to the hospital you aught to have had a good opportunity to mirandize him in the car. The only exception to this would be if he was unconscious or sedated, which means you can't question him anyways.

I'm torn between three possible conclusions. (1)The trusting conclusion is that if everyone naturally has the "Miranda rights" and the "Miranda warning" just verifies that they are aware of them, the government had nothing to gain by not mirandizing Tsarnaev. Consequently, we can assume that the decision to not mirandize him had mostly to do with the practical considerations of sedation and his condition. Additionally, if he was in bad physical and mental condition, his statements were likely not admissible anyways so it makes no difference.

(2)The slightly more skeptical conclusion is that they hoped that by not mirandizing him they may get him to say more. If he understood US law, he may have assumed that if he hadn't been mirandized that anything he did say would be inadmissible. Thus he would say more. If the authorities wanted to learn from his interrogation, but also figured they had enough evidence to convict him without his testimony this may make sense as a strategy.

(3)The more paranoid conclusion is that the authorities actually didn't think he had "Miranda rights" (or thought that he potentially might not) and thus didn't think they needed to give him the "Miranda warning." This seems to contradict constitutional law. More disturbingly, it raises the question of what other options they considered. What types of interrogation or trials were considered?

What do you think? What other conclusions might we raise? Do I understand the law correctly?

[JohnR! 5,495]

(2)The slightly more skeptical conclusion is that they hoped that by not mirandizing him they may get him to say more. If he understood US law, he may have assumed that if he hadn't been mirandized that anything he did say would be inadmissible. Thus he would say more. If the authorities wanted to learn from his interrogation, but also figured they had enough evidence to convict him without his testimony this may make sense as a strategy.

Door #2

These are the main reasons he was not read his Miranda rights. They could get more from him, lest he clammed up behind Miranda and also because they feel they do not need a confession from him to convince a jury. Bear in mind that they can still read him his Miranda rights at any point during the investigation.

[Darnell 8,478]

SMR - I suggest not using what's going down on Dzokhar Tsarnaev as a litmus test for anything.

[GandD 5,966]

I thought they didn't read him the Miranda rights because they weren't sure how they were going to try him. As in, was he an enemy combatant.

[Darnell 8,478]

I thought they didn't read him the Miranda rights because they weren't sure how they were going to try him. As in, was he an enemy combatant.

Yeah, I heard that posit for two days, as well. But there were other posits. I dunno, confusion reigned, those two days.

It's a new week - lets see just how 'American' this fella is going to be, legally .

[GandD 5,966]

This guys is talking about it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/how-the-media-have-misunderstood-dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-i-miranda-i-rights/275189/

[Harsh_77 716]

I thought they didn't read him the Miranda rights because they weren't sure how they were going to try him. As in, was he an enemy combatant.

I believe part was that and other reason was than they can question him without his lawyer being present.

[Darnell 8,478]

Well, he had just eaten his pistol moments before 'being in custody',

so maybe they weren't focusing on his ability to speak, thus no thought about 'Mirandizing' him?

[newacct 688]

I think a plausible rationale is so that he can say more things, not so that the government will use those things to convict him, but so that maybe those things can help uncover any threats that may still exist, like undiscovered bombs or bad people or groups that are still out there to do harm.

Edited April 23, 2013 by newacct

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought they didn't read him the Miranda rights because they weren't sure how they were going to try him. As in, was he an enemy combatant.

I don't think that was ever really an option in consideration; requests to the contrary from some Constitution hating Republican Senators notwithstanding.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't think that was ever really an option in consideration; requests to the contrary from some Constitution hating Republican Senators notwithstanding.

Nothing like a decent waterboarding to set your mind right.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nothing like a decent waterboarding to set your mind right.

Yes because we need to lower ourselves to their level. After all, they can't win any other way.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes because we need to lower ourselves to their level. After all, they can't win any other way.

Things must be boring in your powder puff world.

[justashooter 430]

I thought they didn't read him the Miranda rights because they weren't sure how they were going to try him. As in, was he an enemy combatant.

BINGO, we have a winner.

this guy was acting in concert with an anti-American military movement, so he is an illegal combatant. if he is citizen of USA he has already forfeited citizenship status by acting in an aggressive war against the USA and her declared interests. he should be tried in Mil court, not civil court.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Things must be boring in your powder puff world.

Not at all. What they want most is destroy our way of life. And they're quite successful at it.