Twenty-three years ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens sat on the high court and heard the case Michigan v. Jackson. The Court ruled that police cannot start questioning a suspect who has a lawyer or has asked for a lawyer.
Anything the police find out could be thrown out of court.
The Obama administration wants the Supreme Court to do away with this right to counsel. They say, “the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meager benefits.”
The government said defendants who don’t wish to talk to police don’t have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers’ questions.At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision “only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions.”
The biggest benefit of having a lawyer present is the knowledge they bring to the playing field.
The administration’s position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens’ 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.“Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information,” said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration’s position “is disappointing, no question.”
Disappointing is an understatement. When you look at what the Obama administration is trying to do here, you have to wonder why they would what to eliminate this.
There really is no purpose in limiting the rights of the defendent. They are assumed innocent still, right?
Hat Tip: Instapundit
