Court: Rights don't have to be read to prisoners
Court Alerts
The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in "custody" as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.
"Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion.
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners.
"Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: 'You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,'" Ginsburg said in her dissent. "Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights."
Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave.
Related listings
-
Teen pleads not guilty in Ohio Craigslist killings
Court Alerts 02/17/2012An Ohio teen has pleaded not guilty to killing one man and attempting to kill a second in a deadly Craigslist robbery scheme that targeted older and single out-of-work men. Brogan Rafferty, his ankles and wrists cuffed, made a brief appearance Friday...
-
Mass. court: Intent to sell pot still a crime
Court Alerts 02/14/2012The state’s highest court has ruled that a person can still be criminally charged with attempting to distribute marijuana even when the amount of the drug discovered is less than an ounce. But the court left open the question of whether those crimina...
-
Federal court rules for Ohio festival free speech
Court Alerts 02/13/2012A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of two Christians who say their free speech rights were violated at a southwest Ohio corn festival. A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel ruled unanimously Monday that a policy against solici...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.