First of all, the reporter came off as very sympathetic towards the defendant. As a reporter he should remain objective, unless this was a human interest story, which it wasn't.

Second, the author chose to quote someone a law professor from the U. of Berkeley, knowing full well what that person's response would be. He should have balanced it a bit.

I may not be right, but that's what I got out of it, at least.

Very good start, Michele.

Anyone notice anything else?

This quote rankled my nerves for some reason:

"A ruling that minimizes defendants' rights would be useful to the administration, which supports Oxnard's appeal, in its questioning of terrorism suspects, experts said. "

Well, I certainly don't recall any quotes from the Bush administration in the article, that's for sure. Good call.

Now. Read the 7th paragraph. Carefully.

Because the CJLF gets labeled conservative? But that happens all the time.

Bias in reporting is like having to work a few offices down from someone who whistles all day long. You can complain all you want, but ultimately you just plug your ears and resume working.

Chavez should have known that questioning a man who had been

a.) shot five times [by the police],

b.) was crying out for treatment, and

c.) had been given no Miranda warning...

...was a violation of his constitutional rights.

Clearly this is a case about "c"...

...but, er, excuse me, why wouldn't "a" and/or "b" also be a violation of his rights?

Reminds me of that scene in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" when Redford tells Newman that he won't jump off the cliff into the water below to escape the Federales.

"Why not?" says Newman.

"Cause I can't swim," says Redford sheepishly.

Newman cracks up. It the funniest thing he's ever heard. "Hell!" he says gasping for breath. "The fall'll kill ya!"

Ara,

Just out of curiousity, why would questioning a person who had been shot 5 times by the police be a violation of his rights?

And why would questioning someone who was crying out for treatment (and in fact, was receiving treatment, according to the story) be a violation of his rights?

It said Chavez should have known that questioning a man who had been shot five times, was crying out for treatment and had been given no Miranda warning was a violation of his constitutional rights.

The Miranda Warning is NOT a constitutional right. His Constitutional Rights were not violated. The law was violated but not his Constitutional Rights!

Gary: Just out of curiousity, why would questioning a person who had been shot 5 times by the police be a violation of his rights?

I know how you feel and I think that's a fair question to ask.

I felt the same way too, especially after I caught the tell-tale buzzword in the article: terrorist.

But I read the article again and here's what I found:

The case isn't about the questioning of the man. It's about the answers he "gave" and the circumstances under which he "gave" them.

A complicating factor here is that I have no idea what happened in that field that day. Don't know if the guy pulled his knife, stole the officer's gun, don't know if it was an ambush, don't know anything from the CNN report.

And neither do you.

But isn't this what trials are for?

But here's the thing: Martinez wasn't charged with a crime. What a mess.

Look, I'm all for letting the police do their job. The policemen I know are just like you and me: they are professionals. More than that, they are used to coming in contact with the worst scum of the earth on a daily basis. They call it the way they see it and I am very glad for that.

But you can't have street justice, Gary. And that's what this looks like.

What a tragic mess for everyone.

So here's my follow-up (perhaps dumb) question: Suppose the Supremes strike down the Miranda ruling. Doesn't this guy, theoretically, have a civil case against the cops, given that he was never charged with a crime?

You can read it for yourself from the Supreme Court Case. Chavez v. Martinez

IMHO Miranda wasn't issued because the man wasn't being arrested. The questioning also stopped - when Martinez asked that it be stopped. So much for violating rights. I hate it when reporters can't just stick to the facts.

Doesn't this guy, theoretically, have a civil case against the cops, given that he was never charged with a crime?

Well, that is the problem Dean is having with the reporter. The Supreme Court case is a Civil Case.

Paragraph 7 in the article tells us:
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a federal judge that the confession was coerced and cannot be used as evidence against Martinez in his excessive-force civil case against the city. "

The fact that the SC case is about the police defense to the civil suit brought by Martinez against the city. The whole thing is about a civil suit against the city of Oxnard.

Also, according to the SC briefs the questioning took place in the ER not the ambulance.CNN reports that incorrectly.

A really annoying tidbit is this:"Opponents of the government position say a ruling diluting the Miranda protections would be another nail in the coffin of individual rights sacrificed in the interest of rooting out terrorists."

What the FUCK?

What does this civil suit have to do with terrorists?

Can we please try a little harder to hide our abject opposition to anything conceivably Bush Doctriney...

Rose:

I read (most of) the writ of certiorari. It cut to the chase nicely. Thanks for the link.

Even after reading it, a couple of things still seemed odd to me. One of them was in the petitioner's (policeman Chavez's) argument:

Petitioner's conduct, rather than constituting sanctionable police misconduct, had the potential to preserve evidence of possible police misconduct.

My gut reaction is that is NOT what he was doing.

The district court didn't buy the argument anyway and granted a judgement for Martinez, but the appeals court did not even address this claim in its judgement.

Perhaps a dumb question, but by NOT addressing the claim, was the appeals court implicitly upholding the lower court's judgement on it?

If so, regardless of the Miranda implications of the case, does it seem to you that Martinez is probably going to win his civil suit?

BTW, to me, this case would make a lousy precedent for dismissing the Miranda procedure.

And the bit about it being "another nail in the coffin" seemed a tad overwrought, but that's just my opinion. I might be wrong.

Is that what bothered Dean about this article? If so, he probably has a point.

One other thing: the respondent (Martinez) "alleged that the officers violated his constitutional rights by:

• stopping him without probable cause and using excessive force (in violation of the Fourth Amendment),

tampering with evidence (in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment),

inflicting cruel and usual punishment (presumably in violation of the Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment),

and subjecting him to coercive interrogation (in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).The district court granted Martinez partial summary judgment on his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims arising from the interrogation. They denied the Eighth amendment part saying he wasn't a convicted felon (subject to punishment) and lumped that part of his argument into the Fourteenth Amendment part.

Gosh, what happened to the Fourth Amendment part?

That seemed (to me, anyway) the strongest part of Martinez' case, i.e., lack of probable cause and use of excessive force. But the court passed on that one.

Go figure.

Later,
Ara

P.S. You know of course that there is no greater proponent of the Bush Doctrine than yours truly. Just wanted to re-affirm that for the 1,000th time.

Rose:

One more thing you said:

IMHO Miranda wasn't issued because the man wasn't being arrested.

Again, this might be a dumb question, but why the cuffs after they found the knife? Presumably they were taking him into custody to charge him with carrying the knife, no?

The questioning also stopped - when Martinez asked that it be stopped.

Apparently, the questions stopped after the second request.

So we have to deduce that, to Martinez, it was the longest 45 minutes of his pathetic life.

Again, this might be a dumb question, but why the cuffs after they found the knife? Presumably they were taking him into custody to charge him with carrying the knife, no?

This is just my reasoning here. The Miranda should have been cited after cuffing him. They never actually cuffed him because of the flee attempt, scuffle and eventual shooting. The argument then goes to why Chavez - the Sgt called to the scene after the shooting didn't cite Miranda. Chavez was there to determine if the shoot was "clean" or if the policewoman that shot him was in error. From the Police dept. perspective they were at that point investigating the shooting incident of a possible suspect. I think that they're argument is that since Martinez was at that point a possible victim - they needed his account of the incident.

Apparently, the questions stopped after the second request.

I read it again - I'm not seeing a second request.Besides that, they have it all on tape and witnesses(doctors & nurses) to the fact.

Gosh, what happened to the Fourth Amendment part?

The lower courts dismissed that so it isn't being appealed by the city. The police had probable cause.

So here it is, buried seven paragraphs in and in circuitous language:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a federal judge that the confession was coerced and cannot be used as evidence against Martinez in his excessive-force civil case against the city.

So. This man has been charged with no crime. The police allege that he assaulted them with a deadly weapon, that they used necessary force to subdue him, and he was more badly hurt than they would have liked but entirely due to his own actions. Now, he's suing.

The police are using his confession as part of their defense, and this guy is trying to prevent the jury from hearing this evidence in the police's defense.

Certainly, there are countless other problems with this highly irresponsible article. But what they've most conveniently buried is the fact that this man isn't defending himself, he's suing, and trying to get evidence which weakens his case buried.

We can talk forever and ever about whether the police's action was justified here. Maybe this is an innocent victim who was brutalized by bad cops. Or maybe he's a felon who tried to murder two cops.

That's not the issue.

The reporting here is a disaster from top to bottom, and isn't even honest about the most basic facts of the case, burying the most important details deep in the story and in unclear language.

---

You want a plausible scenario?

Cops are assaulted and the perp gets hurt badly during the assault. The police, knowing full well that a badly hurt suspect is a serious threat to their livelihoods and could, potentially, wind up with they themselves charged with a crime, and realizing there are no witnesses, decide to grill the guy to get him to confess.

They never deny or delay any medical treatment, but they do try to scare him into confessing. They know full well they cannot possibly use that to prosecute the man, since that is a matter of long-settled law. But that's not their goal. The goal is to save their careers from another of the many lawsuits that often destroy a cop's career.

They get him to confess, so they can use it as evidnece in case they ever wind up defendants in an internal affairs, criminal indictment, or civil suit.

Now "civil libertarians," having discovered a whole new interpretation of Miranda, suggest that Miranda, beyond protecting the accused from being put in jail, now actually gives plaintiffs against the government to hide evidence from a jury in a civil suit.

Not a criminal indictment. A civil suit.

Now the courts are looking at the question, and this is now being peddled as a "potential weakening" of the Miranda decision--when it's really simply a question that's never come up before.