01-13-2012, 11:50 AM
(01-13-2012, 11:25 AM)Adub Wrote: …So, Williams is challenging his in-custody statements. From the latest court document, Williams was read his rights, said he wanted to call an attorney, then engaged the detectives in conversation. He was read his rights, and didn't STFU. Imo, that should be an easy ruling for the Judge. The police only interviewed him for a little over an hour before booking him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
Assertion
If the defendant asserts his right to remain silent all interrogation must immediately stop and the police may not resume the interrogation unless the police have “scrupulously honored” the defendant’s assertion and obtain a valid waiver before resuming the interrogation.[49] In determining whether the police “scrupulously honored” the assertion the courts apply a totality of the circumstances test. The most important factors are the length of time between termination of original interrogation and commencement of the second and a fresh set of Miranda warnings before resumption of interrogation.
The consequences of assertion of Fifth Amendment right to counsel are stricter.[50] The police must immediately cease all interrogation and the police cannot reinitiate interrogation unless counsel is present (merely consulting with counsel is insufficient) or the defendant of his own volition contacts the police.[51] If the defendant does reinitiate contact, a valid waiver must be obtained before interrogation may resume.
In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court ruled that a suspect must clearly and unambiguously assert right to silence. Merely remaining silent in face of protracted questioning is insufficient to assert right.
On the other hand:
The Miranda rule does not prohibit compelling a person to engage in non-assertive conduct that is incriminating or may produce incriminating evidence. Thus, requiring a suspect to participate in identification procedures such as giving handwriting[19] or voice exemplars,[20] fingerprints, DNA samples, hair samples, and dental impressions is not within the Miranda rule. Such physical or real evidence is non-testimonial and not protected by the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause
It is typically during such "non-assertive conduct" that a person will "re-initiate contact" and start blabbing.