c**d
发帖数: 3888 | 1 有一个问题一直不明白。Crim pro 里面没讲过，看了很多年的 Cops 也没弄明白。。。
就是当警察读完 Miranda warning 之后，都会问嫌疑犯 "Do you understand?" 如果
这时候嫌疑犯坚持说 "No" 或者保持沉默，会发生什么？警察应该还可以逮捕这个嫌犯
吧。但是证据呢？是否 admissible? |
x******e
发帖数: 81 | 2 Then it's not a knowingly,intelligent waiver. |
c**d
发帖数: 3888 | 3 So no interrogation can take place?
【在 x******e 的大作中提到】
: Then it's not a knowingly,intelligent waiver.
|
j****i
发帖数: 496 | 4 In real life, the cop will clarify the situation either secure a waiver or
get the accused clearly invoke his Miranda rights (either right to silence
or right to counsel or both). In law school exam, you argue both ways (
failure to invoke Miranda vs. not voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver)
. I tend to think that silence is an effective invocation of right to
silence, but invoking right to counsel requires an affrimative statement.
Further questioning maybe okay (1) if there is no custo
【在 c**d 的大作中提到】
: 有一个问题一直不明白。Crim pro 里面没讲过，看了很多年的 Cops 也没弄明白。。。
: 就是当警察读完 Miranda warning 之后，都会问嫌疑犯 "Do you understand?" 如果
: 这时候嫌疑犯坚持说 "No" 或者保持沉默，会发生什么？警察应该还可以逮捕这个嫌犯
: 吧。但是证据呢？是否 admissible?
|
c**d
发帖数: 3888 | 5 This makes a lot of sense. Thanks. |
e*a
发帖数: 182 | 6 我觉得嫌疑犯对Miranda Warning的沉默不能作为是对“保持沉默权利”的放弃，相反
，我倒认为嫌疑犯的沉默已经是在行使他的保持沉默的权利了。警察那方，可以在等待
足够长的时间后，再问一遍Miranda Warning，如果嫌疑犯主动坦白，那么这个证据有
效。如果嫌疑犯继续沉默，警察再等待足够长的时间，重复以上循环，直到嫌疑犯主动
坦白或者嫌疑犯可以离开为止。
waiver)
5th
【在 j****i 的大作中提到】
: In real life, the cop will clarify the situation either secure a waiver or
: get the accused clearly invoke his Miranda rights (either right to silence
: or right to counsel or both). In law school exam, you argue both ways (
: failure to invoke Miranda vs. not voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver)
: . I tend to think that silence is an effective invocation of right to
: silence, but invoking right to counsel requires an affrimative statement.
: Further questioning maybe okay (1) if there is no custo
|
