Supreme Court to clarify Miranda Warnings?
There is a chance that the US Supreme Court will review a Florida case holding the pre-interrogation warnings that the officers gave the suspect were inadequate under Miranda v. Arizona.
What does Miranda require? | SCOTUSblog: "When he was taken by Tampa police to headquarters for questioning, he was given Miranda warnings. Detectives, reading from a standard form, included this warning in their recital: ‘You have a right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions.’ Powell agreed to talk to them, and then provided the incriminating statement. He appealed his conviction, challenging the adequacy of that warning.
The Florida Supreme Court took on the issue, treating it as a matter of ‘great public importance.’ In its ruling, that Court remarked: ‘In this case the warning was misleading. The warning said ‘before answering any questions.’ The ‘before questioning’ warning suggests to a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes that he or she can only consult with an attorney before questioning; there is nothing in that statement that suggests the attorney can be present during the actual questioning.’ That, it said, is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Miranda decision."
(Via SCOTUSBlog.com.)
On the one hand, it would be good to get some clarification on the issue. On the other hand, at least from a criminal defense lawyer's perspective, that SCOTUS hears the case does not bode well for the potential outcome.
In DUI trials you may not be entitled to a peremptory challenge
In an opinion issued on March 31, 2009, the United States Supreme Court held that peremptory challenges in criminal cases flows from the states and is not constitutionally mandated.
Read the full opinion here.
Essentially, if the State court denies you the right to strike a juror, SCOTUS doesn't care.
