Abdo confession included by judge
IVAW’s cause of the moment a few years back when he was just a conscientious objector before he was a child pornography purveyor, Army PFC Naser Jason Abdo, who also planned to detonate a bomb in a Killeen, TX restaurant was disappointed this week when the judge refused his motion to toss his confession to the plot because Abdo claims that he wasn’t read his rights before the interview according to the Associated Press;
Another Killeen detective testified that he read Abdo his Miranda rights shortly after placing him in a police car, but said the audio did not record because of a delay and no other officers were present. Bradley talked to Abdo in the police car after that.
C. Michael Owens, an FBI special agent, testified that he read Miranda rights to Abdo twice – before interviews with him on July 27 and 28. Prosecutors showed documents signed by Abdo agreeing to talk to investigators and waiving his rights to an attorney. During the first six-hour interview, Abdo said he was in Killeen to make things right with Allah because he had sinned against Allah, Owens testified.
One of Abdo’s lawyers, Zachary Boyd, also claims that the police had no reason to detain him because he wasn’t acting suspiciously in their presence. Those boys are really reaching.
Category: Shitbags
Properly filed under”Shitbags”!
Ah…yes! I still remember Miranda 101 class at Gordon. This fooking asshat is a prime example of that class too. Yes, MP’s are versed in Miranda…same as civie cops.
You know you shouldn’t need Miranda, but apparently no one ever RTFM on the 5th amendment. Indeed after Miranda’s conviction was tossed (rape) he was caught yet again and convicted yet again. So I’m sorry that bit of law is utter horse shit.
Sorry for the side bar. As for Nasser. What. A. Dumbass. And the Jihadis wonder why we never respect them
Miranda v Arizona (1966): The concept of “Miranda rights” was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for domestic violence. (Miranda was subsequently retried and convicted.) The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states: …The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning “read the Miranda warning to” a suspect (when the suspect is arrested).[1] Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).[2] On June 1, 2010, in deciding the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, the United States Supreme Court declared that criminal defendants who have been read the Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police for that protection against self-incrimination to apply. If they speak to police about the incident before invoking the Miranda right to remain silent, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police.… Read more »
from NOLO: Many people believe that if they are arrested and not “read their rights,” they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can’t use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial. Miranda Warnings Popularly known as the Miranda warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona), a defendant’s rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by TV police immediately upon arresting a suspect: You have the right to remain silent. If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire. If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.) When the Miranda Warning Is Required It doesn’t matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect’s answers as evidence at trial. If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning. Pre-Arrest Questioning People are often surprised to learn that if a person hasn’t yet been arrested, the police may question the person and use the answers in court… Read more »
Yep – signing a waiver or two pretty much meets the requirement, as this judge reaffirmed.
Miranda Warning
The following is a much more verbose Miranda warning, designed to cover all bases that a detainee might encounter while in police custody.
A detainee may be asked to sign a statement acknowledging the following.
You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.
Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney
But, but, but, don’t ask for ID…
(OWB ducks for cover)
Sorry, was a civ cop for 32 years and also served in an Army MOS where we might have to give an advisement. For the military it’s a lot different than civ law enforcement.
It’s important to understand that all of this only appplies to humans.
So, Abdo voluntarily confessed and judge will allow his voluntary confession to be used as evidence.
I’m just heartbroken to hear that. (smile)