(1) Both the majority and dissenting opinion agree that if the police did in fact lie to Montejo about whether he had counsel, which was unclear from the record, then Montejo’s rights were violated and the evidence would be thrown out. In addition, Montejo has not been sentenced…the case was remanded in order to determine if Montejo was protected under the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick line of cases.

(2) The Jackson opinion was decided incorrectly. The Jackson protection was granted upon a defendant’s request for counsel . . . and the 6th amendment’s protections do not turn upon a request for counsel, but rather are applicable as soon as the suspect becomes a defendant; that is, as soon as the suspect is indicted, arraigned, etc.

(3) The Jackson Court made no mention of the fact that some States ask the indigent defendant if they would like counsel, and some States merely appoint counsel without ever allowing the defendant to speak. The difference, you ask? Because the Jackson protection is only granted upon request for counsel, some defendants will receive the protection, while others will not. The basis for that distinction? The State in which the trial is to take place. Such a protection should not be given due solely to the luck of the draw.

(4) The Jackson Court mis-applied Edwards in a 6th amendment context. Edwards is a prophylactic rule designed to protect Miranda, another prophylactic rule, which was designed to prevent police badgering, in order to protect the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Confused? It’s a confusing matter. The 6th amendment right to counsel, in contrast, is designed to assist a defendant with the complex legal procedure that comes with a trial. The two amendments, while both provide a right to counsel, have two completely different foundations. Applying Edwards to a 6th amendment context was illogical, and created further confusion in this area of the law.

The Jackson case was illogical and unworkable. Its protection was created by misapplying Edwards in a 6th amendment context, while providing that protection to only a select group of individuals based purely on the good(or bad) luck of which State they were being tried in. The protection provided by Jackson is already provided under the Mirand-Edwards-Minnick line of cases. If a defendant does not want to talk to police, he sure as hell doesn’t have to. The Supreme Court properly overruled Jackson, and in doing so, provided some clarity in this area of the law. A result that the Court should continually strive to reproduce.

Thank you Professor Turley for your enlightening interpretation.

Did someone still your girl? Go on back to your…. Your masters calling. What do you call him now, Rush?

you are more proof bad apples don’t fall far from the tree.

I think it’s great fathering to discuss the supreme court with your kids. And I agree with mine that Scalia is a pompus ass regardless of his accomplishments.

I guess asses need asses that they admire when they realize that there ass is not as good as the next ass.

Funny how young people that vastly outperform others, whether in Boy Scouts, sports, academic acheivements, voluteering, or whatever are always kind of the targets for those among us that find it so much easier to bitch about them than emulate them.

I hope not too many Father’s raising sons take the occasion to bitch and whine about the symbols of other’s accomplishments as yours chose to do. Nice bit of fathering there, eh?

Creepy and not suprising! Scalia never met a totalitarian he didn’t love.

He shames the Court and the United States.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/supremes_06.html

With all due respect.

In a time where issues of torture and what interrogation techniques work, I cannot believe that someone who believes in the rule of law–let alone the Constitution–would do anything but fight against decisions like this.

Yes, I know his DNA was reported to be found under the deceased’s finger nails, but the larger picture here is that authorities are more free to use those interrogation techniques to convince suspects not to get legal advice. So while the rate convictions based on confessions rise what we will see is not justice but more of these convictions turned over later when evidence is found that absolves the confessed–only after they have fought to have another day in court from behind bars.

Just like those currently trying to get DNA tests to prove their innocence, the future is filled with more injustice and justice unserved. As Justice Stevens said in dissent, “The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” and “Because police questioned Montejo without notice to, and outside the presence of, his lawyer, the interrogation violated Montejo’s right to counsel even under pre-Jackson precedent.” Have we learned nothing?

We are supposed to believe that the cost of Montejo v. Louisiana is that some may go free who should not. But is that really the cost of Montejo v. Louisiana or the result of poor prosecution or poor investigation?

These are the some of the issues I voted on in ’08, and it looks like I’ll still be voting on them in ’12.

What also worries me a great deal is that Obama intends to give the form of legality to actions that are in fact, extra-Constitutional. Thus preventative detention will likely become the law of the land. Congress has signaled its willingness to pass this law (to keep us safe). The last line of defense would then be the supreme court who should rule PD unconsitutional. If Judge Sotomayor rules with the executive (and I see many indications she will) we will have PD as the “law” of our land even thought it is not actually lawful.

This is a case where vital rights were stripped away in favor of unchecked govt. authority. This ruling, which is a pattern, should be of great concern.

Again I am only asking.

Done.

Cooperating.

Thanks for giving this story its own thread, Prof.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/30/u-s-vows-to-keep-using-state-secrets-defense/?eref=politicalflipper