Confusion Regarding The Public Safety Exception To Miranda In The Boston Marathon Bombing Case

With the recent conclusion to the manhunt in Boston, and the capture Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the FBI has indicated they will not be advising Tsarnaev of his Miranda Rights, opting to proceed under the "public safety exception" to Miranda. While there may be future legal challenges to this strategy by the prosecution, the information being disseminated about the Miranda Rights and the Exception should be clarified.

To begin with, I heard one commentator on television state that Tsarnaev was not going to be given his Miranda Rights. It may be a minor point, but this Right is given to all U.S. citizens and is recognized in the U.S. Constitution. The Miranda Warnings, however, are the statements read to any criminal suspect by law enforcement, usually contemporaneous with or soon after being taken into custody. Rights can not be given or taken away by anyone; warnings, on the other hand Warnings can be given or not, at the investigator's discretion.

What are Miranda Warnings?

Miranda Warnings stem from the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for raping two girls. After several hours of intense interrogation, without being advised that not only he did not have to participate, but that he had a right to consult with an attorney, he signed a confession. This confession was used against him at his trial at which he was convicted. His case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court who overturned his conviction and the now famous Miranda Warnings were promulgated.

What is the "Public Safety Exception" to Miranda?

The Public Safety Exception to Miranda comes from the 1984 case of New York v. Quarles. Benjamin Quarles (also, coincidentally, a rapist) was apprehended by a New York City police officer who had received a complaint from a woman stating she had been raped by Quarles and that he had a gun. When Quarles was taken into custody, the officer noticed he had an empty gun holster and, before advising him of his Miranda Rights, asked Quarles where was the gun. Quarles indicated where it was and the officer retrieved it. Both the gun and the admission were offered at Quarles' trial and were excluded pursuant to the Miranda decision. The U.S. Supreme Court, after New York appealed the state court rulings, carved out the Public Safety Exception. They determined that the officer made an immediate decision to safeguard the public. Quarles presented "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The statement and gun were thus permitted in Quarles trial. In the Boston Marathon Bombing case, unlike most cases that rely on the Quarles decision, the authorities are indicating they intend to wait several days before advising Tsarnaev of his Miranda Rights. Most cases involving the Public Safety Exception have situations of immediate and imminent public safety concerns. At this point, there does not appear to be that level of urgency in the Boston case. We'll have to see how this plays out in the federal courts and how the Justices interpret the Constitution and apply the Quarles standard.

Isn't The Arrest Invalid If Miranda Warnings Are Not Read?

No! This is a common misconception. An arrest is valid so long as there exists probable cause for the charge. Miranda Warnings are only required if a defendant's statements are going to be used at his trial. If investigators and prosecutors believe there is ample evidence to support a conviction without a defendant's statements, they may proceed to trial. As an example, Miranda was retried for the rape of the two girls and was convicted without the use of his confession. In regards to the Boston Marathon Bombing case, there is more than likely ample evidence to warrant a trial and support a conviction. Therefore, it really is a moot point if Tsarnaev is advised of his Rights or not.

Questions Regarding Miranda Warnings?

Contact Garrett Law Group, PLC in Virginia Beach. (757) 422-4646. Our criminal defense attorneys are available to answer your questions 24/7/365.

The 7 Most Sinful and Immoral Criminal Defense Trials

Posted by Basil on December 27, 2012

Some people become famous because of their exceptional talent while others make their mark on history through political, military, or social activism. Other individuals become known for very different reasons. Some make it to national news because of the horrific crimes they commit or are at least accused of.

No matter the crime, America stands on the principle that everyone has the right to a fair trial. This means each accused party is entitled to a criminal defense lawyer. In fact, organizations like the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have been established for this very reason. Finding a good defense attorney is not cheap, thankfully federal law states that everyone has the right to an attorney even if the accused party cannot afford to hire the best lawyers.

“Innocent until proven guilty.” Although cases still slip through the cracks and the system is far from perfect, using this principle in the court systems helps advocate justice for all. Without precautions based on this creed, there would be many innocent individuals incarcerated each year.

Defense attorneys often receive a bad reputation for standing up for criminals. However, the truth is that they are as crucial to maintaining justice and retribution as the prosecuting party. They too wish to see the innocent are protected and the guilty receive proper punishment- no more and no less.

This is a compilation of the most sinful criminal defense trials based on the seven deadly sins; greed, gluttony, slothfulness, lust, pride, wrath, and envy. We have included a range of criminals, from Al Capone to OJ Simpson. Most of these cases are from the United States. In all but one of the seven, the accused was convicted of some or all of the charges. Many do not realize that even if pleading guilty, having a defense lawyer is still very important.

criminal defense

How Are Sentencing Guidelines Used In Criminal Cases In Virginia?

By James Garrett
 
After someone is convicted of a felony in Virginia, whether it be after entering a guilty plea or a trial, the Circuit Court judge will order a presentence report. A presentence report is prepared by a probation officer and includes various background, family, and employment information about the defendant. One of the items included in the presentence report is a calculation of sentencing guidelines.

Sentencing guidelines give a point value to several factors, including the particular charge, the defendant’s prior criminal record, and some aggravating factors such as use of a weapon and victim injury. After calculating the various factors, that score is compared to a sentencing table that has been established by the Virginia General Assembly to set a recommended sentencing range. The purported purpose of this range is to ensure that defendants convicted of similar crimes who are in similar situations receive similar treatment from the various judges and courts throughout the Commonwealth.

When judges impose sentences, they will generally suspend a portion of that sentence. They may impose a five year prison sentence and suspend four years, leaving one year to serve – the active sentence. The only legal restriction on the court for sentencing is the maximum sentence set by the statute. The sentencing guidelines recommend to the judge what that active sentence should be. While departure from the recommendation is not uncommon, judges do sentence within the guideline range in most cases. It is important to remember that sentencing guidelines are advisory only, and a sentencing judge may impose a sentence within those guidelines or depart from them either downward in favor of the defendant, or upward in favor of the Commonwealth.

When preparing for a sentencing hearing, a criminal defense attorney should evaluate not only the presentence report and sentencing guidelines, but also things not included in that report, such as other sufferings of the defendant due to the offense, positive contributions by the defendant to the community, and their involvement in the community through church, business or civic organizations.

A sentencing hearing is the opportunity for a criminal attorney to show the defendant in a more positive light that just that of a convicted felon. If you have been charged with a criminal offense in Hampton Roads, VA, you should contact an experienced Virginia Beach criminal defense attorney to help you.

Contact our criminal lawyers today for a free consultation about your case. (757) 422-4646. Our Virginia Beach criminal attorneys are available to answer your questions 24/7/365.

Garrett Law Group, PLC
Virginia Beach Criminal Lawyers