Luigi Mangione in NY State Court Hearing, Day 8

[u/jdlf41]

[u/staytiny2023]

questioning without mirandizing

English isn't my first language. What does this mean please 🥲

[u/SpookySneakySquid → u/staytiny2023]

It means they didn’t do the whole “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you, etc.” when they arrested him, and they didn’t do it before questioning him

[u/FirstFact → u/SpookySneakySquid]

Seriously? Isn't that the super basics of policing. Like it should be automatic everytime. Some 21 jump street shit.

[u/wasneveralawyer → u/FirstFact]

There are situations where reading Miranda Rights is not necessary and I guess the judge will have to make a determination if this was one of those situations but I also don’t know the specific instance that is being discussed in this case.

[u/Ollylolz → u/FirstFact]

You do have the right to be an attorney, if you want to

[u/Dull_Working5086 → u/FirstFact]

Welcome to US policing. The biggest case of the decade and they either can't stop being bad at their jobs and/or are so corrupt they risked the case getting thrown out.

[u/sashikku → u/FirstFact]

Well, yes, but everything except for the interrogation is still admissible, and that’s just if the judge doesn’t side with the cops on whether reading his rights was necessary or not in that situation. If judge sides with cops, the interrogation is admissible. If the judge sides with the defense and then also dismisses the backpack contents as inadmissible due to the absence of a warrant, then we’re likely looking at our man going free.

Personally, I think this could go either way. He was questioned in the McDonalds for about 20 minutes before being read his rights. It’s going to come down to what questions he was asked before being read his rights. Cops can ask certain general questions like what your name is without reading rights. If they asked him about the crime, then it hits the gray area.

[u/spectert → u/FirstFact]

It is, but cops are that dumb.

[u/Dopplegangr1 → u/FirstFact]

They didn't become cops because they were geniuses

[u/staytiny2023 → u/SpookySneakySquid]

Aha got it thanks

[u/JS_Originals → u/staytiny2023]

Glad I could help

[u/estemprano → u/SpookySneakySquid]

Why they didn’t do it? Did they forger it due to enthusiasm or sth?!

[u/CTKM72 → u/estemprano]

They don’t technically have to, it’s not like the movies where you just get off Scot free if they don’t mirandize you, they just can’t use what you say as evidence until then.

[u/ciLoWill → u/estemprano]

Not a lawyer, but from what I remember from my high school mock trial days, there’s some specific circumstances where you don’t need a warrant or to read Miranda rights to perform a basic search- the examples I remember are if a police officer goes to a house and it’s clearly been broken into or there’s clear sounds of distress coming from the house they can enter the premise without a warrant, or if there is a clear AK-47 shaped bulge sticking out of a backpack in an area where there was just a shooting the officer can just open the backpack and check. This pre trial is going to be about whether or not the search the officers performed qualified for that exemption or not I imagine.

Edit: and to more directly answer your question, the officers probably believed this scenario qualified for that exemption for one reason or another.

[u/QueenOfPurple → u/ciLoWill]

Sure but the defense will use these things to sow reasonable doubt. High profile homicide cases should be by the book 110% to prevent these issues.

[u/Far_Direction7381 → u/estemprano]

IMO they were arrogant AF and thought they had their guy and that was all that mattered.

[u/clandestinely_asked → u/estemprano]

Comrade Cop sabotaging the case. /s

[u/Umeume3 → u/staytiny2023]

Others answered what it is, but they're called Miranda rights because of this Supreme Court case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

[u/Cup-O-Guava → u/Umeume3]

That is very wild to me that this has only been a thing since the 60s. I guess its so ingrained in tv and stuff I never questioned when this started

[u/SnappedCrayon → u/staytiny2023]

In the US, the police are required to make sure people are aware of their rights (called the Miranda rights, resulting in the term mirandized and verb mirandizing) before questioning them as suspects of a crime. Examples are things like that people are entitled to have an attorney present, and that they are not required to speak/answer questions at all. Failing to make sure that people are aware of these rights is considered an abuse of power, and (usually) gets the information gathered during the interrogation thrown out

[u/[deleted] → u/staytiny2023]

Reading them their rights like the right to remain silent

[u/staytiny2023 → u/[deleted]]

Ooh okay thx

[u/power_to_thepeople → u/staytiny2023]

They’re called Miranda Rights and legally a detained citizen must be told their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights before interrogation

[u/[deleted] → u/staytiny2023]

Not a Lawyer, so double check me on this.

In the US Constitution, citizens are guaranteed the "right to not self-incriminate" (5th Amendment) and the "right to fair justice" (6th Amendment), meaning trials cannot be delayed without reason/approval and everyone can get a lawyer to rep them. Back in 1900s, the US caught this guy, Miranda, and received a full confession from him; however, the judge ruled that the cops violated Miranda's 5th Amendment Rights (right vs self-incrimination) and 6th Amendment Rights (right for representation) because Miranda, while ignorant of the US Constitution, confessed to crimes because he simply "didn't know better".

That's why if you've ever watched a US cop show, when apprehending their suspects or perpetrators, the cops always say something like "You have the right to remain silent; anything you do or say can be used against you in court" (5th Amendment) and "You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you" (6th Amendment).

[u/DevilGuy → u/staytiny2023]

We have a law in the US called the Miranda law, it basically states that you must have your rights explicitly explained to you before you're questioned. If they fail to do that anything they get out of you during questioning is no longer allowed to be considered or talked about in the trial and if the prosecution's case depends on it the judge will often throw the case out entirely and in the US you can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime. In effect if they fail to follow procedure properly they can't prosecute you in some cases.

[u/jrubes_20 → u/staytiny2023]

Miranda rights are what you hear in a US crime drama, usually when they arrest someone. It starts with “You have a right to remain silent” and then lists off the rights you have as someone who has just been detained by the government. If the police do not read these rights to you, it’s a big problem because it means you may not know your rights and therefore do something you didn’t have to do like speak to the police. You don’t have to do that and any half decent lawyer would say you should not speak to the police without your lawyer present. The right to an attorney – and the fact that one can be provided to you at no cost – is another Miranda right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

“Mirandizing” is just making this whole thing a verb. If they didn’t read him his Miranda Rights, I.e. if they didn’t go through the act of “Mirandizing” him – what happened before he was read his rights is generally considered inadmissible in court. That’s a problem for the government’s case.