General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOnce Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his rights on Monday, he immediately stopped talking
BOSTON — The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings acknowledged to the FBI his role in the attacks but did so before he was advised of his constitutional right to keep quiet and seek a lawyer, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
Once Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his rights on Monday, he immediately stopped talking, according to four officials of both political parties who were briefed on the interrogation but insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.
After roughly 16 hours of questioning, investigators were surprised when a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney’s office entered the hospital room and read Tsarnaev his rights, the four officials and one law enforcement official said. Investigators had planned to keep questioning him.
It is unclear whether any of this will matter in court since the FBI says Tsarnaev confessed to a witness and U.S. officials said Wednesday that physical evidence, including a 9 mm handgun and pieces of a remote-control device commonly used in toys, was recovered from the scene.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/boston-honors-slain-mit-officer-investigators-want-to-talk-to-brothers-parents-in-russia/2013/04/24/be74738e-ad3e-11e2-a8e6-b6e4cc7c49d1_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)This is going to dispel all the things the CT have said on DU that the police were trying to kill him, and after he was arrested they tortured him. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)from Boylston Street and the dashcams of Watertown PD cop cars to send him away for the rest of his life...and that's assuming that the feds don't go for the death penalty.
His only hope of keeping his heart beating is to start chit-chatting, assuming he has anything worthwhile to say.
I made the mistake of viewing a video out on Youtube to do with the shootout in the road. The comments were incredible. People claiming they could hear the Brothers Tsarnaev shouting, "We didn't do it!"...as if that was evidence that they'd been framed. I really wanted to ask whether this was shouted before or after they tried to throw the bomb at the police - you know, the pressure cooker bomb, just like the ones they used at the marathon.
The surviving murderer can say what he likes or keep it zipped - neither is going to help him much.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)This will make conservatives angry. They will scream that we should have tortured him.
Cons are just as sick and depraved as the terrorists.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Many suspects who hold valuable information are offered immunity in return for their cooperation.
IMO it's time to go "all in" and treat him like a citizen. Any evidence he gave prior to a Miranda warning would be accompanied by immunity from prosecution because those statements wouldn't be admissible in his trial.
It's actually ok to give immunity to re-establish what was, before he received the warning. Cheating people out of their rights by purposefully keeping them ignorant of their rights is unbecoming of the greatest democracy on Earth.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
dkf
(37,305 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)at the same time his rights were read.
I'm UK so don't easily identify exactly with your procedures. I'm not aware of any circumstance in the UK under which someone arrested is not cautioned - could subsequently kill a case in court.
MADem
(135,425 posts)...Tsarnaev, 19, who is facing the possibility of the death penalty for his alleged role in last week's terror attack, will be represented by one of the most experienced and well respected public defenders in the country, Miriam Conrad.
Conrad heads the Federal Public Defender Office in Boston and her resume includes defending "shoe bomber" Richard Reid in 2001 for trying to blow up a Paris to Miami jetliner.
"She is excellent, tough, tenacious and wise," said Tamar R. Birckhead, now a University of North Carolina law professor who worked with Conrad for four years, including on the Reid case....Conrad and several other attorneys from her office were listed in court documents as the team representing Tsarnaev. Among them was William S. Fick, who was present at Monday's hearing held inside Tsarnaev's hospital room. Fick requested additional help from attorneys who have previously handled death penalty cases, a requirement under federal law.
John2
(2,730 posts)about the Law myself, so I'll see of you are right. It would be very helpful for his father to help him too, because he is a Lawyer. I imagine he should be studying up on American law. The bottom line, the guy is a U.S. citizen whether some people like it or not. He has all the rights afforded to a right wing extremist in America. He could be on Trial for his life because people want to see him executed already. That is no different than a lynching before the Trial. His age should matter, just like the D.C. sniper and whatever influences there was to influence this kid. Any competent lawyer will do that. His past record should be considered and the chances for rehabilitation. Even though the prosecution has a strong case, it is still up to them to prove it. The Death Penalty is not automatic. They still can plea bargain.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)I doubt his father is license to practice before a Massetchussets or Federal court and, my bets are if he's not an American national (living in Russia for most of the past year) he probably hasn't practiced in this country in a long time...not a good thing in such a high profile case.
Tsarnaev will be represented by a public defender who is more familiar with the court and laws than his father ever could but the ultimate determination, as any lawyer knows, is in what a jury of peers determines. With such a large amount of evidence gathered against him, Tsarnaev will need the best legal counsul available and dad sure isn't it...
MADem
(135,425 posts)Reports suggest they were a dysfunctional, screaming, rage-filled family unit, so who knows how much help the guy will be.
The lawyer he has been given is one of the best in the land. She and her team will make the best deal they can, if their client is amenable, and if not, she'll go to trial and give it her all. You don't need to be concerned about his right to due process. He'll get it.
However, you can't overcome video. And they have LOTS of it. They have him smiling while dumping that bag right behind an eight year child that he murdered in cold blood. They have him dialing the phone that set off the explosions. They have video of him and his brother shooting a cop at point blank range--in the damn head--and trying to steal the guy's gun. They have video (from that Watertown PD cop car that the cops rolled--sans driver--towards the two) of the brother shooting at them and tossing pipe bombs, and Little Bro charging the po-po in a stolen car and running over/crushing/dragging his brother.
He doesn't have to say a word in incrimination. Every picture tells a story. We're not seeing the good stuff. Yet, anyway.
If the federal government wants to go "death penalty," they will get it. 19 isn't 16, and he's not Lee Boyd Malvo. They may not want to go that route, but time will tell.
If I were advising him, I'd suggest, if he wanted to stay alive, to cut a deal.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)With the evidence, the high profile and public sentiment, would a prosecuting attorney with ambition not take this to court?
MADem
(135,425 posts)It would save the government millions, it would provide closure by giving the victims a known outcome, and it would appease the sensibilities of those of us who are opposed to the death penalty in principle (this crime did take place in No Execution Massachusetts, though the feds could kill him), as well as those who don't want to kill someone so young. The people who will be mad will be the "Gaawdammit, MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS will be supporting that little TERRIST and he'll be getting three squares, medical care, and a place to live on MAH DIME!!!" types. Of course, I don't think a lot of those people are among the victims of this heinous act, so I think a 'best outcome' should be more about the victims than people on the sidelines who are into ultimate retribution.
The prosecutor who cuts a "good" deal will get plenty of recognition--a conviction is a conviction, a notch on the belt, after all, even if it's as a result of a negotiation. It's not always about the Perry Mason aspect.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)That word will never come up.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Tell us, how could it be improved?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am not dissatisfied at all.
I think the best outcome here will be a deal. Life in prison, death off the table.
I'm not the prosecuting or defense attorney, though, so that and a couple of bucks will get you a horrible cup of coffee at Starbucks.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)That's the best legal help money can buy? Better to hire whoever the banks use.
MADem
(135,425 posts)pressure cooker bombs, for that matter, all the high-end lawyers in the world wouldn't solve their problem. Particularly since their lawyers aren't schooled in DP cases.
It's an apples and oranges comparison you're making. Our society, in general, views theft, even gross theft, as "less onerous" than mass murder.
dtom67
(634 posts)I don't think anybody deserves Constitutional rights. In fact, I hope that they get rid of Miranda completely. These people are all guilty. We Americans think we are special. Terrorists hate us for our Freedoms. So, lets get rid of those Freedoms, so the Terrorist do not win!
I hope the next guy that is denied miranda rights doesn't get his case on TV. If they did that all the time, we wouldn't have to worry about some "Constitution Theorist" talking about how all these tragedies end up in legislation that reduces our rights. Who needs rights! We have enough to worry about; who wants to bother thinking about things like "precident" or "trial balloons". In fact, who needs to think at all. The TV tells us all we need to know.
( ya know, Fascism isn't really all that bad.......)
tclambert
(11,193 posts)Why should an accused criminal get to wear a hat made of fruit? It's just silly, isn't it?
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)very quickly.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)anneboleyn
(5,626 posts)of fruit must be represented in the hat.
Buns_of_Fire
(19,161 posts)It seems rather disrespectful that the judge would allow balloons (especially the helium-filled ones with smiley faces on them). Obviously, things have changed since the last time I was in a courtroom.
spicegal
(758 posts)forensics, eye witnesses, etc. They also appear to have plenty of information to determine how far this investigation needs to go.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)The only reason not to read him his rights in the first place was that he might have known about an immediate threat to the public. But he was still constitutionally protected against self-incrimination. So whatever he said during that time could not be used against him.
Once he's been read his rights, whatever he says *can* be used against him. If he says nothing, then there is nothing to be used against him, just as there would have been nothing to be used against him if he'd not been read his rights and he'd kept talking. If he talks, he's creating admissible evidence, which he could not have done had no rights been read.
Mirandizing him does not put his case at risk.
onenote
(46,140 posts)under the "public safety exception" someone in police custody can be questioned in pursuit of information about threats to the public without being read his/her rights and the responses they give, despite the absence of any Miranda warning, can be used against them. The issue would likely be whether the questioning exceeded the rather vague boundaries of the public safety exception (in which case a court might refuse to allow the responses to those questions to be used).
avebury
(11,196 posts)trying to keep him off of death row and alive.
With all of the video and physical evidence, along with the testimony of the hijacked, man the prosecution probably has a pretty good case. I would not want to bet against them.
One problem may be trying to get a jury panel that can honestly agree to hear the case with an open mind. There has been far too much coverage in the main stream media plus certain politicians have been shooting their mouths off with total disregard as to if they even knew what they were talking about. Calling for torture, Gitmo, and labeling the boy as an enemy combatant before authorities had the opportunity to determine if that option is legally available. I really wish that the politicians would just shut up and let the case work itself through the courts. While the defense can ask for a change of venue I am not sure that it would solve the jury panel issue. People can be pretty blood thirsty.
I would not totally rule out the possibility of a plea agreement (most likely for life imprisonment) if 1) the death penalty is taken off the table the defendant might it worth his while to take the deal and 2) if the prosecutor doesn't feel that he/she can lock down the death penalty. If the jury panel gets to determine the penalty phase of the trial, the defense may need to get through to as little as one juror to convert the penalty to life versus death.
It might be well worth it for the defense team to add a jury expert to their team.
It will be very interesting to see how the case works itself through the legal system.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)be amenable to a defense offered plea. This will be a death penalty case. If you believe that this kid and his murderous brother were lone wolves (which I do) then the kid has nothing to bargain with at all.
As far as change of venue, you can count on it. McVeigh's trial was moved to Colorado with no complaints. It would be inconceivable that a change of venue would not be granted the defense. The fact is that every potential juror from the Boston area was a "victim" of the defendant's actions because of the lockdown order.
Buns_of_Fire
(19,161 posts)I can't imagine that it'll make any difference in the final outcome of the guilt phase (which I would think will be pretty short-and-sweet), but they're obligated to do whatever they can to help their client in the penalty phase. And the first step there is to get it moved outside of Boston.
avebury
(11,196 posts)if the feds somehow manage to get only life in prison with no chance of parole (yes I know that possibility is extremely slim) I would not put it past Mass to want to find a way to hold their own trial. Oklahoma had their own trial for Terry Nichols (despite the fact that he will live the rest of his life in prison). The Oklahoma trial really didn't change anything except to waste a lot of taxpayer money.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)They're just a list of temporary privileges" -George Carlin
Even the guilty are allowed their due process. Even the guilty are allowed the same fair and just trial. People need to evolve beyond the gut reaction of OMFG!11!!!1 let's killll him.
Frankly I think he should have to live out his life in prison. Killing someone is the easy way out.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Thank you.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Not Mirandizing him doesn't deprive him of rights. It merely dictates what can and cannot be used against him in court proceedings. (Unless they cite the public safety exemption). His constitutional rights remain regardless of whether it not he is given the warning.
There is so much evidence here, the investigators and prosecutors probably figured even if his unMirandized comments are disallowed in his trial, they still have more than enough to get a conviction. I think they weighed usefulness of information vs effect in trial and decided what he might know was too useful to public safety to pass up.
What'll be interesting is how that public safety exemption comes in play. Wouldn't be shocked if we eventually see the Supereme Court clarify it further.
But yes, he deserves a fair trial, and I also do not want to see him put to death. Life without parole is just fine.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Particularly Fox, that's all. Not suggesting that Miranda rights don't apply if not given. Sorry for any confusion.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Making an American citizen an enemy combatant. Jesus H on a crutch.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)of an attorney, from the moment he was cuffed, until the magistrate read to him his right to have one.
Prism
(5,815 posts)If he requested one and was denied it, then his rights were violated. I haven't seen it noted anywhere that was the case.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)he is read his rights at the time he is cuffed. He clearly did not have one defending him until the magistrate read him his rights days later and 16 hrs into being interrogated.
That's why we have the Miranda warning and anything self-incriminating is discarded before awareness of one's rights. It's a shield against police chicanery.
Except in cases of public safety. I suspect, come trial, what a judge will allow from the pre-Miranda interrogation will be very narrow indeed. In theory, law enforcement is only supposed to ask things about bomb locations, accessories, etc., pre-Miranda.
Response to Fearless (Reply #15)
Moondog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Moondog
(4,833 posts)Hosnon
(7,800 posts)Fearless
(18,458 posts)Seems like they weren't all too quick to do that one.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)Fearless
(18,458 posts)
gvstn
(2,805 posts)This headline has been all over. "When read his rights he stopped talking."
The take-away is that thus we shouldn't have read him his rights. I call BS.
If it took the 100's of cops on the boat scene 5 days to realize there was no gun there, yet it was reported that he started that firefight and that he shot himself that night, then we are hearing what is convenient for the present narrative.
No conspiracy here but I believe this headline is to validate not reading him his rights. I also believe he will continue talking. Even his defense lawyer wants the Feds to get the fullest picture of who and what was involved. His lawyer will help filter what he says but he will continue talking even with Miranda.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)needs another defense lawyer IMMEDIATELY.
gvstn
(2,805 posts)Should know the whole story and then let the client relate facts to the authorities when it can be beneficial.
In a case like this he potentially faces the death penalty so taking that off the table can be exchanged for a complete accounting of events/plans.
Keep in mind as drugged up and physically traumatized as this man was during his "confession" it will be difficult to have it weigh the same as other evidence. It is virtually useless in court, Public Safety exemption or not. It just allowed the cops to get information.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
louis-t
(24,618 posts)maybe he was just tired.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)And anything he said before his rights were read to him cannot be used in court. A video of him placing the back pack down, and the car witness would do it.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)as an 'enemy combatant'. And would have been had the great Mitt Romney been in charge. Am I wrong?
dkf
(37,305 posts)We have enough evidence to convict him so I don't have a problem with the confession being inadmissible. And I think if they had read him his rights he would have shut up about he whole thing.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Glad to see DUers have finally talked some sense into you.
However, there still work to do to get you to move left on other issues.
But progress is progress 
dkf
(37,305 posts)In all honesty I kind of blew off the topic.
But I am concerned about our safety and I think we should be able to question people if there is an imminent danger. Of course I'm not advocating torture, but asking questions without compromising self incrimination seems more than fair.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)There's nothing that currently prevents law enforcement from questioning suspects. However, if the suspects refuse to talk....then that's too bad because that's their right as an American citizen.
We can't temporarily suspend or revoke people's rights.
I'm just glad you're starting to see the light and move left. The Constitution is something we can't trample over when we want to.
dkf
(37,305 posts)On the other hand I'm not sure why people need to be read their rights. That seems such a sporadic occurance when we are read our rights regarding anything. Yeah we sign a lot of stuff that supposedly informs us, but having them read? Why is this the only area?
But we live by legal precedent and I think it fits so good.
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)