Opinions Differ On Supreme Court Ruling on Miranda Rights: Washington Post Staff Writer Ruben Castaneda reports on the Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v. Shatzer, and the different ways prosecutors and defense attorneys are interpreting its holding. The Court's opinion allows police to interview a suspect who has invoked his Miranda rights, provided that law enforcement officers release the suspect from custody and wait 14 days. The decision "doesn't erode or cut back on Miranda rights at all," according to Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, who argued the case on behalf of the state in October. He adds, "[t]he interviewing officer still has to read the suspect his or her Miranda rights." Peter D. Greenspun, a defense attorney based in Northern Virginia, disagreed. "This is going to lead to disastrous consequences for those who have not committed any crime and those who have a context for their actions," Greenspun said. "The Supreme Court has now gone into legislative mode. Apparently, at 14 days and one minute, Miranda no longer applies." One prosecutor believes the ruling could be useful in cases where new evidence, such as DNA, comes to light after a suspect has invoked Miranda and been released. CJLF's brief on the case can be found here.
"Justices Weight Claims Over Torture in Somalia": New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on Wednesday's Supreme Court oral arguments in Samantar v. Yousuf, about whether foreign officials may be sued in the United States over torture claims. The Petitioner in this case, Bashe Abdi Yousuf, is asking the Court to allow him to sue Mohamed Ali Samantar, the minister of defense and prime minister of a regime that allegedly tortured Yousuf in Somalia in the 1980s. The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 allows lawsuits against individuals said to have committed torture under the authority of a foreign nation, but the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 bars suits against foreign states and their "agencies or instrumentalities." Most of yesterday's arguments concerned whether that last phrase included current or former officials. Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested that it would be an odd legal system that would require a lawsuit against a foreign government to be dismissed but allow the same suit to proceed once the plaintiff listed the names of the officials involved. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler sided with the plaintiffs in urging the Court to reject Mr. Samantar's statutory immunity argument. But he said Mr. Samantar may still be immune from suit under common law principles, depending on the position taken on that by the State Department.
"Liu Nomination Pushes 9th Circuit Farther Left": Yesterday, Ross Kaminsky of HumanEvents.com had this opinion piece discussing UC Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu's nomination to the 9th Circuit. In the article, Kaminsky states that by nominating Liu, President Obama is working to push the nation's most liberal, and most overturned, court even further outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. The article mentions Liu's views on the death penalty. Kent has suggested that, "[t]o anyone familiar with the death penalty debate, it is painfully evident that Professor Liu takes the murderers' side on every debatable point. If confirmed, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be a vote to obstruct the enforcement of capital punishment in virtually every case." Kaminsky believes that Liu's left-leaning positions on specific issues emanate from a view of the Constitution which is anything but "originalist" and is concerned about what this could mean for our courts.
"Justices Weight Claims Over Torture in Somalia": New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on Wednesday's Supreme Court oral arguments in Samantar v. Yousuf, about whether foreign officials may be sued in the United States over torture claims. The Petitioner in this case, Bashe Abdi Yousuf, is asking the Court to allow him to sue Mohamed Ali Samantar, the minister of defense and prime minister of a regime that allegedly tortured Yousuf in Somalia in the 1980s. The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 allows lawsuits against individuals said to have committed torture under the authority of a foreign nation, but the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 bars suits against foreign states and their "agencies or instrumentalities." Most of yesterday's arguments concerned whether that last phrase included current or former officials. Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested that it would be an odd legal system that would require a lawsuit against a foreign government to be dismissed but allow the same suit to proceed once the plaintiff listed the names of the officials involved. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler sided with the plaintiffs in urging the Court to reject Mr. Samantar's statutory immunity argument. But he said Mr. Samantar may still be immune from suit under common law principles, depending on the position taken on that by the State Department.
"Liu Nomination Pushes 9th Circuit Farther Left": Yesterday, Ross Kaminsky of HumanEvents.com had this opinion piece discussing UC Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu's nomination to the 9th Circuit. In the article, Kaminsky states that by nominating Liu, President Obama is working to push the nation's most liberal, and most overturned, court even further outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. The article mentions Liu's views on the death penalty. Kent has suggested that, "[t]o anyone familiar with the death penalty debate, it is painfully evident that Professor Liu takes the murderers' side on every debatable point. If confirmed, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be a vote to obstruct the enforcement of capital punishment in virtually every case." Kaminsky believes that Liu's left-leaning positions on specific issues emanate from a view of the Constitution which is anything but "originalist" and is concerned about what this could mean for our courts.
Leave a comment