A Flynn question

[Traveler]

Maybe @Just_A_Guy or anyone else can answer - Why was the questioning of Flynn allowed in court when he was interviewed and not allowed his Miranda rights: mainly the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney  present and that anything he said could be held against him in a court of law?  Why has this argument not used to prevent Flynn's conviction? or to void his conviction?

 

The Traveler

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Someone else may correct me, but I *think* Miranda warnings only come into play once a suspect has been brought into custody (i.e., arrested).  If he’s free to walk out of the interview at any time, I don’t believe a Miranda warning is necessary.  

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Someone else may correct me, but

You're the lawyer of the group.  And a pretty good one at that.  So, I don't think anyone would be correcting you about that.

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I *think* Miranda warnings only come into play once a suspect has been brought into custody (i.e., arrested).  If he’s free to walk out of the interview at any time, I don’t believe a Miranda warning is necessary.  

Here's the question to ask about that:

Is the determining factor "arrest" or "freedom to leave"?  When you're brought before a Congressional Hearing or a formal interrogation by law enforcement (the FBI qualifies) I don't think you're free to leave.  But I don't believe he was arrested at the time.

If I receive a subpoena and I'm only considered a witness, am I read my Miranda rights?  In the course of a police investigation, police may be asking people in a neighborhood about a crime.  But as they listen to the "witnesses" they can be screening for people who may be considered a participant in the crime.  Are they read their miranda rights?

So, it really depends on the fine print about when exactly you MUST be read your Miranda rights.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You're the lawyer of the group.  And a pretty good one at that.  So, I don't think anyone would be correcting you about that.

Here's the question to ask about that:

Is the determining factor "arrest" or "freedom to leave"?  When you're brought before a Congressional Hearing or a formal interrogation by law enforcement (the FBI qualifies) I don't think you're free to leave.  But I don't believe he was arrested at the time.

If I receive a subpoena and I'm only considered a witness, am I read my Miranda rights?  In the course of a police investigation, police may be asking people in a neighborhood about a crime.  But as they listen to the "witnesses" they can be screening for people who may be considered a participant in the crime.  Are they read their miranda rights?

So, it really depends on the fine print about when exactly you MUST be read your Miranda rights.

You’re kind.  😊

I know that in practice Miranda warnings aren’t given to parties appearing pursuant to subpoena.  I’d have to read a bunch of court cases to unearth the formal rationale for that; the Wikipedia treatment suggests that it has to do with being in *police* custody—entailing a clear suspicion of wrongdoing by the person.  (It’s been eleven years since I studied this, and a good five or six years since Miranda had any relevant application to my job, so I’m pretty rusty on this . . .)

Edited May 14, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

On 5/14/2020 at 8:13 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

You’re kind.  😊

I know that in practice Miranda warnings aren’t given to parties appearing pursuant to subpoena.  I’d have to read a bunch of court cases to unearth the formal rationale for that; the Wikipedia treatment suggests that it has to do with being in *police* custody—entailing a clear suspicion of wrongdoing by the person.  (It’s been eleven years since I studied this, and a good five or six years since Miranda had any relevant application to my job, so I’m pretty rusty on this . . .)

I wonder about the part of what can be used in a court of law.  I have heard that if someone is tricked into offering information that can be used against them - that it is a violation and therefore cannot be used in a court of law.  But such tactics are often used by law enforcement to get information and that the information can used to obtain evidence that can be used for conviction.

But this Flinn case has opened up another very interesting possibility - that a particular plea can be changed after sentencing.  My research indicates that this is not as uncommon as I thought - so I am wondering why the Flinn case has garnered the attention it has.  One of the items listed specifically for changing a plea after sentencing is that the plea was coerced.   In the case of Flinn both the defendant and the prosecution agree that the plea was coerced.  So now I wonder about what rights a judge has.  A judge's primary responsibility in the court room is to adjudicate the law.  Can a judge be charged for deliberately or accidentally obstructing the law?  

I understand that in a court room a judge wields a great deal of power - because of that power is there accountability?

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2020 at 8:13 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

You’re kind.  😊

I know that in practice Miranda warnings aren’t given to parties appearing pursuant to subpoena.  I’d have to read a bunch of court cases to unearth the formal rationale for that; the Wikipedia treatment suggests that it has to do with being in *police* custody—entailing a clear suspicion of wrongdoing by the person.  (It’s been eleven years since I studied this, and a good five or six years since Miranda had any relevant application to my job, so I’m pretty rusty on this . . .)

I believe it is custody or interrogative.  Generally when a custodial interrogation is about to commence.  In some states you can actually take someone into custody, but if you are not planning on interrogating them in any manner, they may not need to give them a Miranda warning. 

In short, this was due to Ernesto Miranda who was coerced to sign a confession, but did not understand his Fifth amendment rights. 

[mrmarklin]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 8:06 PM, Traveler said:

Maybe @Just_A_Guy or anyone else can answer - Why was the questioning of Flynn allowed in court when he was interviewed and not allowed his Miranda rights: mainly the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney  present and that anything he said could be held against him in a court of law?  Why has this argument not used to prevent Flynn's conviction? or to void his conviction?

 

The Traveler

 

 

Flynn's case was never tried AFAIK.  He entered a plea bargain under financial duress as well as a threat by the DOJ that his son would be dragged into the mire with him.

I'm sure competent attorneys could have gotten him off, knowing what we know now, but the cost was simply too great in many ways compared to the light sentence bargained for.  And at the time there seemed no light at the end of the tunnel for him to get his life back.

Serious DOJ misuse of power, but the government has almost unlimited resources, and most of the rest of us do not.

[mrmarklin]

Since lying to the FBI, or for that matter, most government officials is a felony, best advice is don't even be a witness.  That's why people who are seemingly on the periphery of these cases tend to lawyer up immediately.

Flynn had no reason to believe that he was the target of anything.  He was the National Security Advisor, after all.

Edited May 19, 2020 by mrmarklin

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Flynn's case was never tried AFAIK.  He entered a plea bargain under financial duress as well as a threat by the DOJ that his son would be dragged into the mire with him.

I'm sure competent attorneys could have gotten him off, knowing what we know now, but the cost was simply too great in many ways compared to the light sentence bargained for.  And at the time there seemed no light at the end of the tunnel for him to get his life back.

Serious DOJ misuse of power, but the government has almost unlimited resources, and most of the rest of us do not.

 

5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Since lying to the FBI, or for that matter, most government officials is a felony, best advice is don't even be a witness.  That's why people who are seemingly on the periphery of these cases tend to lawyer up immediately.

Flynn had no reason to believe that he was the target of anything.  He was the National Security Advisor, after all.

Having been in the military as part of an intelligence unit that specialized in interrogation methods and also having the experience of being questioned by the FBI - I can insure the world that it is not that hard to "catch" someone in a lie.  What concerns me is that I know some "good" Democrats that think Flinn should serve time.  I am thinking this country has become too politically divided to survive much longer.

 

The Traveler