Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

What Is the 9th Circuit Thinking?


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

Get Me A Lawyer

 

When 19-year-old Tio Sessoms was arrested in 1999 for the murder of a Sacramento minister, he told police that his father "asked me to ask you guys -- uh, get me a lawyer."

 

The officers responded by saying they would advise him of his rights and then see if he wanted a lawyer. They also told him two other suspects had already talked to them without lawyers and that an attorney would probably discourage him from giving them his version of events. And they denied his request to call his father.

 

 

The court said police must halt their questioning of a suspect who clearly asks for a lawyer, but that Sessoms hadn't done that. When he said, "Get me a lawyer," he wasn't speaking for himself but was just relaying what his father had told him, Judge Richard Tallman said in the majority opinion June 3.

 

In the questioning, which was recorded on video, Sessoms "never indicates any desire to transform his father's advice into his own desire to have a lawyer present," said Tallman, joined by Judge Johnnie Rawlinson. He also noted that the law requires federal judges to give great deference to the conclusions of state courts, like the one that upheld Sessoms' conviction.

 

I don't care if he said "I saw on TV that I should say 'Get me a lawyer.'" He said the words required. What next, saying he didn't mean it if he has his fingers or arms crossed? At least one of the justices seems to have some common sense:

 

In an indignant dissent, Judge Betty Fletcher said Sessoms had clearly asked for a lawyer and that police had talked him out of it, in violation of the constitutional standards the Supreme Court established in the 1966 Miranda ruling.

 

"When Sessoms said, 'Give me a lawyer,' he meant give me a lawyer, regardless of whether the request was on the advice of his father, his priest or his law school professor," Fletcher said. By "waving its wand" and transforming those words, she said, the state court, with the help of the federal court majority, "has made Miranda rights disappear."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what were they thinking?

 

Who said judges think?

They don't they are part of the global conspiracy to deprive citizens of the United States of America of our rights.

Guess who the other part is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Dirty Dan Dawkins:

 

I am a lawyer. From time to time I have done criminal defense. I do not suck! I do my job. I argue the law as developed from state and federal constitutions and legislators elected by the public. Without people like me, the police would not stop at writing you a ticket, you would be strip searched and beaten into a confession at their whim. Some lawyers fight really hard for their clients and that forces police to go by the book-that book is the culmination of legal actions by elected officials under the constitutions of the states and the federal government as written and developed by the founding fathers and voted and passed by the citizens.

 

I am tired of all of you smart asses that want your rights and then want to insult and dismiss those of us that have fought in the courtrooms to preserve those rights.

 

If this forum allowed true freedom of speech, (Which is not to say it should) The next words from me would be anything but pleasant. Now go put your head back in the sand and your thumb back up your backside you moron.

 

 

and the 9th Circuit is wrong, but Miranda has been diminished in recent years by several rulings. Perhaps the Supreme Court will fix this, if the defendant has a good lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, I'm a retired LEO, over 20 yrs as a detective. There are no such things as a suspect getting off on a "legal technicality", what that means is the detective didn't do his job. Remember you can't enforce the law by breaking it. All of you that proclaim your support for the 2nd amendment, should also support the 4th, 5th, and 14th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Dirty Dan Dawkins:

 

I am a lawyer. From time to time I have done criminal defense. I do not suck! I do my job. I argue the law as developed from state and federal constitutions and legislators elected by the public. Without people like me, the police would not stop at writing you a ticket, you would be strip searched and beaten into a confession at their whim. Some lawyers fight really hard for their clients and that forces police to go by the book-that book is the culmination of legal actions by elected officials under the constitutions of the states and the federal government as written and developed by the founding fathers and voted and passed by the citizens.

 

I am tired of all of you smart asses that want your rights and then want to insult and dismiss those of us that have fought in the courtrooms to preserve those rights.

 

If this forum allowed true freedom of speech, (Which is not to say it should) The next words from me would be anything but pleasant. Now go put your head back in the sand and your thumb back up your backside you moron.

 

 

and the 9th Circuit is wrong, but Miranda has been diminished in recent years by several rulings. Perhaps the Supreme Court will fix this, if the defendant has a good lawyer.

 

 

Gentlemen, I'm a retired LEO, over 20 yrs as a detective. There are no such things as a suspect getting off on a "legal technicality", what that means is the detective didn't do his job. Remember you can't enforce the law by breaking it. All of you that proclaim your support for the 2nd amendment, should also support the 4th, 5th, and 14th.

 

Well said, gentlemen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Dirty Dan Dawkins:

 

I am a lawyer. From time to time I have done criminal defense. I do not suck! I do my job. I argue the law as developed from state and federal constitutions and legislators elected by the public. Without people like me, the police would not stop at writing you a ticket, you would be strip searched and beaten into a confession at their whim. Some lawyers fight really hard for their clients and that forces police to go by the book-that book is the culmination of legal actions by elected officials under the constitutions of the states and the federal government as written and developed by the founding fathers and voted and passed by the citizens.

 

I am tired of all of you smart asses that want your rights and then want to insult and dismiss those of us that have fought in the courtrooms to preserve those rights.

 

If this forum allowed true freedom of speech, (Which is not to say it should) The next words from me would be anything but pleasant. Now go put your head back in the sand and your thumb back up your backside you moron.

 

 

and the 9th Circuit is wrong, but Miranda has been diminished in recent years by several rulings. Perhaps the Supreme Court will fix this, if the defendant has a good lawyer.

 

 

 

Not all Coppers..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing better than strip searching someone and beating a confession out of them on a whim!! It is almost as satisfying a a Jelly Donut.

 

Doc

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Dirty Dan Dawkins:

 

Without people like me, the police would not stop at writing you a ticket, you would be strip searched and beaten into a confession at their whim. Some lawyers fight really hard for their clients and that forces police to go by the book-that book is the culmination of legal actions by elected officials under the constitutions of the states and the federal government as written and developed by the founding fathers and voted and passed by the citizens.

 

I am tired of all of you smart asses that want your rights and then want to insult and dismiss those of us that have fought in the courtrooms to preserve those rights.

 

If this forum allowed true freedom of speech, (Which is not to say it should) The next words from me would be anything but pleasant. Now go put your head back in the sand and your thumb back up your backside you moron.

 

 

and the 9th Circuit is wrong, but Miranda has been diminished in recent years by several rulings. Perhaps the Supreme Court will fix this, if the defendant has a good lawyer.

 

 

Yup. We only do the right thing because we're afraid of lawyers. Not because it's right. Not because it's the legal thing. Or because that's the way we were trained.

Why don't you just come out and say "Cops suck"?

 

Thanks.

 

My wife worked as a secretary for a law firm for 20 years. They were good people. Some aren't. You don't hear me bash all lawyers though.

 

But, I don't think I've ever called any member here a moron, no matter how well deserved the sobriquet might have been. I prefer to do that face to face.

 

Thanks for keeping all us strip searching, rights trampling thugs at bay. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. We only do the right thing because we're afraid of lawyers. Not because it's right. Not because it's the legal thing. Or because that's the way we were trained.

Why don't you just come out and say "Cops suck"?

 

Thanks.

 

My wife worked as a secretary for a law firm for 20 years. They were good people. Some aren't. You don't hear me bash all lawyers though.

 

But, I don't think I've ever called any member here a moron, no matter how well deserved the sobriquet might have been. I prefer to do that face to face.

 

Thanks for keeping all us strip searching, rights trampling thugs at bay. <_<

 

Wow! I don't think I've ever seen Bob on his high soap box like that before. I must say, I'm impressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By his own admission he has already established that he does not Suck, but just as always there is a double standard for LEO's, we ALL SUCK until we prove otherwise!!!!! :huh:

 

ROFLMAO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as an assistant prosecutor, I will just say that, with all due respect, the Bill of Rights is not a technicality. Having said that, I have yet to run into a police officer that wasn't legitimately trying to do his job, and do the right thing. I know there are plenty out there, but I haven't run across them. I have run across some who are lazy, and not that bright, but the same could be said of any profession, including lawyers.

 

As for defense attorneys, I will simply add that, while I don't know that I could do the work day in and day out, I am thankful that we have people who can, because the system would grind to a halt in short order without them.

 

Oh, and just remember that the guy that was most responsible for the Declaration of Independence, along with many of those responsible for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... were lawyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as an assistant prosecutor, I will just say that, with all due respect, the Bill of Rights is not a technicality. Having said that, I have yet to run into a police officer that wasn't legitimately trying to do his job, and do the right thing. I know there are plenty out there, but I haven't run across them. I have run across some who are lazy, and not that bright, but the same could be said of any profession, including lawyers.

 

As for defense attorneys, I will simply add that, while I don't know that I could do the work day in and day out, I am thankful that we have people who can, because the system would grind to a halt in short order without them.

 

Oh, and just remember that the guy that was most responsible for the Declaration of Independence, along with many of those responsible for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... were lawyers.

 

In the Continental Congress, 24 of 56 signers were lawyers or jurists. Thirty-four of fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers.

 

Currently 54 out of the 100 members of the Upper House of Congress are lawyers. And there are 162 of 441 (including 6 non-voting members) in the Lower House, which is about 36%.

 

Roughly one third of one percent of the population of the US are lawyers. Maybe in the interest of "diversity" and equal representation in the workplace, we should limit the number of lawyers in Congress. ;)

 

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? "
If all they did was talk I don't think there would be problems. But they seem to think they need to 'do something' about everything and anything. Whether or not anything needs to be done.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware that most LEO's are good guys doing their jobs the right way. I also see the people that become officers, not to serve, but to gain the 'power" that comes with the position for whatever reason. I have no beef with the good cops, but do you really believe that the people that make bad cops wouldn't abuse their power if the system didn't have checks and balances? I meant no disrespect to the officers that do their jobs the right way.

 

I am sick of the lawyer insults-I spent a lot of time and money and effort to be what I am and I do a lot of good for my clients.

 

The 9th Circuit was wrong on the confession issue-look at how well the law worked in that interrogation; where were our righteous LEO's?

 

Who is going to try and fix it? A lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware that most LEO's are good guys doing their jobs the right way. I also see the people that become officers, not to serve, but to gain the 'power" that comes with the position for whatever reason. I have no beef with the good cops, but do you really believe that the people that make bad cops wouldn't abuse their power if the system didn't have checks and balances? I meant no disrespect to the officers that do their jobs the right way.

 

I am sick of the lawyer insults-I spent a lot of time and money and effort to be what I am and I do a lot of good for my clients.

 

The 9th Circuit was wrong on the confession issue-look at how well the law worked in that interrogation; where were our righteous LEO's?

 

Who is going to try and fix it? A lawyer.

 

 

J. Mark, me and you are Pards...but you were just as far off base with your generalization of cops:

Without people like me, the police would not stop at writing you a ticket, you would be strip searched and beaten into a confession at their whim
as the 9th circuit was with their ruling. The lawyer insults are no more hurtful that the ones directed at cops.

 

And, having some knowledge as to how situations like that end up in front of appellate courts, I suspect ignorance rather than malfeasance on the part of the cops involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was married to a cop for 10 years.

My son's best friend is a cop and that kid is like a son to me also.

Some of my best friends are cops.

I think that for the most part people go into law enforcement with the best of intentions....wanting to do the right thing and help people.

Unfortunately some cops think they are above the law themselves. I know everyone here that is in law enforcement knows cops like that even if they are not that way themselves.

 

Saying that all cops suck is like saying all blondes are dumb.

Some...maybe even most.....but not all.

 

Don't get me started on lawyers.

Again, some good and honest... some definitely not!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney belong solely to the person being questioned. I've had several cases where I had a suspect upstairs confessing while family members were in the police lobby demanding that we not question him until he gets a lawyer. Too bad.

 

Miranda doesn't even apply if the person is not in custody. A suspect can be interviewed all day long without reading Miranda if you set the interview up correctly. Defense Lawyers really hate that one.

 

Once you learn the rules, you can play the game. The only problem is, the rules keep changing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that all cops suck is like saying all blondes are dumb.

Some...maybe even most.....but not all.

 

Don't get me started on lawyers.

Again, some good and honest... some definitely not!

 

This can be said about all professions... :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Continental Congress, 24 of 56 signers were lawyers or jurists. Thirty-four of fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers.

 

Currently 54 out of the 100 members of the Upper House of Congress are lawyers. And there are 162 of 441 (including 6 non-voting members) in the Lower House, which is about 36%.

 

Roughly one third of one percent of the population of the US are lawyers. Maybe in the interest of "diversity" and equal representation in the workplace, we should limit the number of lawyers in Congress. ;)

 

It might not be a bad thing.

 

If all they did was talk I don't think there would be problems. But they seem to think they need to 'do something' about everything and anything. Whether or not anything needs to be done.

 

I have always thought the problem is they either want to be "seen" as doing something, or they want to put their mark on something. Long ago, the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" got lost. Though you all know I am not religious, I am mindful of the old joke that God saw fit to stop at 10 laws....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to apologize to J. Mark Flint for my tirade. His statement was not a blanket indictment of law enforcement as I interpreted it.

 

I am a bit tired of the police bashing that goes on here sometimes as I'm sure he's tired of the lawyer bashing.

Remember, without prosecutors, no bad guys go to jail.

 

Lets pick on truck drivers for awhile. I was once hit by a big rig. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Don't get me started on lawyers.

Again, some good and honest... some definitely not!

 

And those tend to get called "Senator" or "Congressman" or "Alderman." ;)

 

 

The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney belong solely to the person being questioned.

 

And in this case the suspect said the words. It shouldn't matter what he prefaced it with. He said the words.

 

I've had several cases where I had a suspect upstairs confessing while family members were in the police lobby demanding that we not question him until he gets a lawyer. Too bad.

 

Miranda doesn't even apply if the person is not in custody. A suspect can be interviewed all day long without reading Miranda if you set the interview up correctly. Defense Lawyers really hate that one.

 

 

How can you question someone "all day long" if that person is "not in custody?" Could the person get up and walk out? Or would he be told to sit down, he isn't going anywhere?

Once you learn the rules, you can play the game. The only problem is, the rules keep changing.

 

And that is why LE gets a bad name. And why "the rules keep changing."

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the key. They can walk out. At the start of the interview, I thank them for agreeing to talk with me and I let them know that they are not under arrest and there has been no warrant issued for them. After giving them those instruction (on tape) Miranda doesn't apply. It's just like talking to someone on the street. Whatever they tell you is admissible in court. Interviewing is an art form. Some people have a natural gift for getting the truth out of criminals. It's kind of a challenge to sell prison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the key. They can walk out. At the start of the interview, I thank them for agreeing to talk with me and I let them know that they are not under arrest and there has been no warrant issued for them. After giving them those instruction (on tape) Miranda doesn't apply. It's just like talking to someone on the street. Whatever they tell you is admissible in court. Interviewing is an art form. Some people have a natural gift for getting the truth out of criminals. It's kind of a challenge to sell prison.

 

How many get up and walk out when you assure them they are not under arrest and can walk out at any time without any interference? Telling them "There is no warrant issued for you." has a kind of implied "yet" in it, which could be intimidating.

 

I will say that anyone who willingly goes for an interview like that is really, really stupid. Same for anyone who waives their Miranda rights. Anything you say may be able to convict you. Nothing you say can be used to exonerate you.

 

Kind of strange how anything that you tell LE that exonerates you, if LE relates it on the witness stand, will be objected to as "hearsay" but anything you tell that may point to guilt isn't "hearsay."

Link to post
Share on other sites

just remember that without teachers, there wouldn't be any lawyers, cops, or crooks! it's MY fault! teachers suck!! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many get up and walk out when you assure them they are not under arrest and can walk out at any time without any interference? Telling them "There is no warrant issued for you." has a kind of implied "yet" in it, which could be intimidating.

 

I will say that anyone who willingly goes for an interview like that is really, really stupid. Same for anyone who waives their Miranda rights. Anything you say may be able to convict you. Nothing you say can be used to exonerate you.

 

Kind of strange how anything that you tell LE that exonerates you, if LE relates it on the witness stand, will be objected to as "hearsay" but anything you tell that may point to guilt isn't "hearsay."

Most criminals believe that they can lie their way out of trouble. And yes, usually they are stupid. The stupid ones are easy.

My job is to get to the truth. If the suspect has information that exonerates him, I'm all ears. I certainly don't want to send someone innocent to prison. I'd like to hear his alibi or his defense to an allegation prior to his attorney inventing one after reviewing all my evidence in discovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lets pick on truck drivers for awhile. I was once hit by a big rig. ;)

 

ALRIGHT!!!! Now yer just takin' it too dadgum far!!

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::D

 

~EE Taft~

Link to post
Share on other sites

just remember that without teachers, there wouldn't be any lawyers, cops, or crooks! it's MY fault! teachers suck!! :lol:

 

Isn't it always Mom's fault?

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.