What will determine being named a 'suspect' vs. 'person of interest'

[pizmex]

Here's another entry:

Many of my clients complain that the police never read them their rights. I wish the police always had that obligation when questioning a person, but that is not the situation. Generally, the police must advise a suspect of his or her Miranda rights if the suspect is in custody;

http://katzjustice.com/underdog/arc...da-does-and-does-not-come-to-the-rescue..html

 

[suspicious mind]

Or you could call a suspect a suspect if you have no idea who committed the crime....like "the suspect that killed jonbenet has yet to be identified".

I don't understand the law on this really, I know in a case I am following on here, they took 3 suspects to a grand jury and they issued no indictments so they sealed the GJ testiony and cannot reveal who the suspects were, b/c they did not issue an indictment, and that, apparently would be grounds for the unnamed suspects to file a lawsuit for slander. Now this info is coming from the detectives and is their answer as to why they will not divulge the names of the 3 "suspects".

 

[suspicious mind]

Miranda rights only give ou the right to not incriminate yourself, and to have someone speak on your behalf.

 

[pizmex]

One more:

Discussion of Miranda doctrine can usefully be organized around ... What factors trigger Miranda protection? ...

Unlike Sixth Amendment rights, which are triggered by a formal charge, Miranda protection comes into play whether or not the suspect has been charged, so long as she is interrogated while in custody.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/711/Confessions-self-incrimination-approach-Miranda-doctrine.html

 

[Pedrosmom]

I am wondering why LE has not named her a suspect, given the mountain of evidence stacking up against her. Why is she still only being called a 'person of interest'?

I remember Mark Furhman saying that there really is no difference between the two. They call them POI and suspect interchangeably. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Pedrosmom]

You're only mirandized when you are charged. She's been mirandized for the other crimes, but not murder, although she is the prime suspect.

 

[pizmex]

You're only mirandized when you are charged.

Sigh. A person is Mirandized when they are taken into custody for questioning. You don't have to be charged to be entitled to Miranda warnings. Custody and questioning are the key. Casey Anthony was in custody and interrogated at Universal Studios before she was arrested. There she was given her rights even though not yet charged because the context of her surroundings (a female with male officers in a small conference room) could have been deemed custodial.

If, for example, prior to Casey's arrest, police officers at the police station called up Casey at her home to question her over the telephone, she would not be entitled to Miranda Rights. In that example, she was not under arrest, and was not in custody. That she might've been a suspect or a POI when that hypothetical phone call was made is irrelevant to Miranda Rights considerations. Again, custody is the key.

 

[JBean]

Sigh. A person is Mirandized when they are taken into custody for questioning. You don't have to be charged to be entitled to Miranda warnings. Custody and questioning are the key. Casey Anthony was in custody and interrogated at Universal Studios before she was arrested. There she was given her rights even though not yet charged because the context of her surroundings (a female with male officers in a small conference room) could have been deemed custodial.

If, for example, prior to Casey's arrest, police officers at the police station called up Casey at her home to question her over the telephone, she would not be entitled to Miranda Rights. In that example, she was not under arrest, and was not in custody. That she might've been a suspect or a POI when that hypothetical phone call was made is irrelevant to Miranda Rights considerations. Again, custody is the key.

I agree that you are mirandized when you are taken into custody.

but I do not agree that Casey Anthony was in custody when they talked to her at Universal which is why they were very specific in the interview to tell her that the doors were not locked and they were in a room for privacy only. They do this so later she can't say hey i was in custody and I wasn't read my rights. I do not think was she mirandized at that time. I wouldn't think so anyway.
ETA: I would think that she was mirandized when they actually took her into custody and in this case when she was arrested.

 

[pizmex]

I agree that you are mirandized when you are taken into custody.

but I do not agree that Casey Anthony was in custody when they talked to her at Universal which is why they were very specific in the interview to tell her that the doors were not locked and they were in a room for privacy only. They do this so later she can't say hey i was in custody and I wasn't read my rights. I do not think was she mirandized at that time. I wouldn't think so anyway.
ETA: I would think that she was mirandized when they actually took her into custody and in this case when she was arrested.

They told her the door was open to protect themselves precisely against the idea that a Judge might think she was in custody, and throw out any statements obtained at Universal. Those detectives knew what they were doing. But they also read her her rights, just in case. The detectives protected the integrity of the interrogation every way possible,against a possible future attack. They told her she was free to leave and did not have to say anything, etc, etc. I remember reading the officer's report, where it indicated that Casey was read her rights at Universal.

But whether she was or was not given her rights at Universal is a side matter, and not relevant to what we were discussing earlier. This point of fact doesn't affect any of my prior posts, the point of which is that custody is what triggers Miranda Rights, not labels. And also, a person does not have to be inside a police station or in handcuffs to be deemed to be in police custody. Under the right circumstances, a person might be deemed to be in custody in an outside setting as well. Or even in a conference room.

 

[JBean]

They told her the door was open to protect themselves precisely against the idea that a Judge might think she was in custody, and throw out any statements obtained at Universal. Those detectives knew what they were doing. But they also read her her rights, just in case. The detectives protected the integrity of the interrogation every way possible,against a possible future attack. They told her she was free to leave and did not have to say anything, etc, etc. I remember reading the officer's report, where it indicated that Casey was read her rights at Universal.

But whether she was or was not given her rights at Universal is a side matter, and not relevant to what we were discussing earlier. This point of fact doesn't affect any of my prior posts, the point of which is that custody is what triggers Miranda Rights, not labels. And also, a person does not have to be inside a police station or in handcuffs to be deemed to be in police custody. Under the right circumstances, a person might be deemed to be in custody in an outside setting as well.

If she was free to leave then she wasn't in custody and wouldn't need to be mirandized.

 

[JBean]

pizmex, I do understand what you are trying to say.

 

[TxLady2]

When a police officer is escorting you to anyplace... whether it is the jail or to an interrogation room or to McDonald's for a Big Mac.... you are 'in custody.' Once you are in the jail and booked, or charged, you are under arrest.
They do not Mirandize people they are just questioning. They do when you are under arrest.
I don't think there is a lot of difference in a POI and a Suspect... but once you are charged with a crime you become "the accused" and are no longer a suspect.

 

[pizmex]

If she was free to leave then she wasn't in custody and wouldn't need to be mirandized.

Yes, but you only state the conclusion. It's not that simple to decide whether she was free to leave simply because the door was unlocked. The issue is not whether she was free to leave in the literal sense of the word, but rather, in the legal sense of the word. There are other factors to consider. We don't have enough information to determine whether on challenge, a Judge would decide whether Casey was or wasn't free to leave that conference room for purposes of Miranda. I'm not arguing for one result over another. I'm just pointing out that the issue could get very complicated, very technical in the legal sense, and hinges on other information. I would presume that the statements in the conference room were obtained validly though; otherwise the defense would have already attempted to challenge them.

This is now becoming a nit picked tangential side issue, straying from the original point. It would take a considerable amount of posting to fully flesh out all aspects of Miranda, as they apply to this case. You could write a big, thick, heavy book on Miranda alone. Many already have.

My original point was that Miranda applies to custodial situations. The original point was that it never matters whether the person to be Mirandized is a suspect, or a POI, or anything else. It's not about a person's status.

 

[pizmex]

pizmex, I do understand what you are trying to say.

I think our posts are overlapping. I agree with you that Casey would probably not have been deemed to be in custody in that conference room. But we really do not have all the information we need to accurately determine this issue. We are just guessing really, even if we are guessing correctly. My basis for presuming that the statements taken from Casey in that conference room were obtained validly is simply because the defense has not challenged them. But the defense, has more information than we do on the circumstances surrounding Casey's conference room interview.