The privilege against self-incrimination protects against governmental compulsion to answer questions, not against voluntary conversation. In situations whereMessage 1 of 6 , Jul 5, 2012View Source
The privilege against self-incrimination protects against governmental compulsion to answer questions, not against voluntary conversation. In situations where a person is free to speak or not to speak at all, the privilege is generally not applicable. Minnesota v. Murphy, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1142-43, 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984). One exception to this general rule relates to statements obtained from suspects in police custody. Because custodial interrogation is ordinarily conducted by officers who are acutely aware of the potentially incriminating nature of the disclosure sought and because the custodial setting contains "inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely," statements obtained during custodial interrogation are constitutionally inadmissible unless the suspect has first been warned of his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel and thereafter voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives these rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1624, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The Miranda safeguards, however, do not apply "outside the context of the inherently coercive custodial interrogations" for which the safeguards were designed. Murphy, 104 S.Ct. at 1144, quoting Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 560, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 1364, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980).
Statements freely made by an incarcerated defendant to an ostensible friend, who unknown to the defendant is acting as a police informant, are not the product of any sort of coercion, legal or factual, and for this reason are not made under the inherently coercive circumstances contemplated by Miranda. See Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 303-04, 87 S.Ct. 408, 414-15, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). In this case the defendant's conversations with Ross were freely entered into, as is obvious from the testimony of both Ross and the defendant, as well as from the uncontroverted fact that the defendant returned Ross' phone calls. Thus, the admission of the statements into evidence did not violate the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. People v. Aalbu, 696 P. 2d 796 - Colo: Supreme Court 1985
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1341518400.php This is a good list of elements of the Grand Scheme to destroy the middle class. Too bad they still areMessage 1 of 6 , Jul 6, 2012View Sourcehttp://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1341518400.php
This is a good list of elements of the Grand Scheme to destroy the middle
class. Too bad they still are mostly unaware. If only Americans knew the
current lawful definition of the word "dollar" and acted as though they
... Entities need specially qualified people to speak and act for them, unless those requirements are waived for some reason, such as by agreement. I requireMessage 1 of 6 , Jul 7, 2012View Source
>"Entities" need specially qualified people to speak and act for them,
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, gary2666@... wrote:
>> but I don't see it being accepted by either of those entities.
>> Can anyone cite a case or an IRS interview where this was used and
>> accepted as a justification for not answering questions? My
>> research capabilities are severely limited these days.
> One does not ask the opposition for permission to do
> anything. The case was presented for thoughtful
> expansion as one's imagination and determination
> will carry.
> Your research abilities are not all that is severely
unless those requirements are waived for some reason, such as by
I require that all qualifications be fulfilled before I let anyone
interrogate me, and if I'm in custody, I demand counsel be present, and he
has to be qualified as well.
Did I ever mention? Hardly anyone anywhere is qualified anymore.
The game has been over for a long time, yet many continue to pretend to
play. Someday it will be obvious to everyone, such as it became to those
who once cowered in fear of the Commissar in the USSR.