tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post5394548719609220588..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: CGCCA holds two CGIS agents' five-minute conversation in front of a suspect for the admitted purpose of getting him to reinitiate isn't interrogationDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-83670361897223717032008-02-14T22:54:00.000-05:002008-02-14T22:54:00.000-05:00Anonymous,Your argument would suggest that we shou...Anonymous,<BR/>Your argument would suggest that we should do away with Miranda entirely, since "[i]n this day and age," it might interfere with law enforcement agents obtaining a confession to many offenses more heinous than communicating a threat. Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't. But only the Supreme Court can. Unless and until the Supremes do so, lower courts must obey Miranda and its progeny. That progeny includes Supreme Court precedent holding that law enforcement officers may not reinitiate an interrogation once a suspect has invoked his or her right to counsel. Supreme Court precedent holds that this right must be respected even more scrupulously than an invocation of the right to silence. Say an accused invokes the right to counsel. If the police then reinitiate, it doesn't save any subsequent confession if the suspect is Mirandized and waives after that reinitiation occurs. In this case, the CGIS agents reinitiated. Perhaps, as you argue, it served a greater good that they did so. Decisions like that are way above my pay grade. My point is that, given the descriptions of events in the Coast Guard Court's opinion, the CGIS agents' actions appear to have clearly violated the rules for obtaining an admissible confession.<BR/><BR/>But why do you seem to assume that a lack of a confession would equal an acquittal? Wasn't the threat communicated to another person? Of course -- and Coast Guard law enforcment agents were told of the threat, which is why they apprehended Seaman Bonilla. So even without Seaman Bonilla's confession, the government may have been perfectly able to try and convict him.Dwight Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-32355937210774262062008-02-13T15:17:00.000-05:002008-02-13T15:17:00.000-05:00The formal record of this case indicates that the ...The formal record of this case indicates that the CGIS Agents acted totally within the law (as indicated by the CG Court of Criminal Appeals RIGHTFULLY upholding the finding of Guilty for Bonilla), and more likely than not the CGIS Agents prevented an incredible tragedy from occuring!!! In this day and age it's prudent that when someone makes a claim that they're going to kill someone that law enforcement TAKE THE THREAT SERIOUSLY. Thank God the CGIS Agents did!! Furthermore, Bonilla was advised of his 31(b) Miranda rights by the CGIS Agents BEFORE the CGIS Agents questioned him. During which Bonilla was informed about the charges against him. Bonilla elected to talk to the CGIS Agents. Bonilla was also advised by the CGIS Agents that he could terminate the interview at any time and he signed the Rights form acknowledging that he was aware of this right. Bonilla didn't terminate the interview and he never asked for a lawyer. No Oscar needed here but maybe a little consideration is due to the two CGIS Agents who responded to the call to protect the constitutional rights and possibly the life of the true victim of this incident-that being the CG Senior Chief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-51609753591335448682008-02-09T07:48:00.000-05:002008-02-09T07:48:00.000-05:00That seems to be saying that this is not an "unjus...That seems to be saying that this is not an "unjust" result. And as I tried to convey in my post, I think that's a perfectly defensible position. But even if it is a just result, it does not comply with a legal rule that says that a suspect who invokes his right to counsel cannot be questioned further unless the suspect "initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police," Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485. Remember that the Supreme Court has held that interrogation includes not only questioning, but also statements likely to elicit an incriminating response. Two law enforcement officers sitting in front of an accused who has been held for hours and hours in a tiny interrogation room who hold a five-minute conversation in front of the suspect is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.<BR/><BR/>PLUS, as Chief Judge McClelland observes, the officer who delivered the initial Article 31 warnings certainly violated Article 31 by failing to advise the suspect of the offense of which he was suspected.<BR/><BR/>So perhaps the rules should be changed to allow what the Coast Guard law enforcement personnel did in this case. But as long as we are operating under the current rules, this was impermissible.Dwight Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-43635007932637922602008-02-08T22:35:00.000-05:002008-02-08T22:35:00.000-05:00I don't see a problem with this opinion. A clearl...I don't see a problem with this opinion. A clearly guilty perp duped by two earnest cops trying to keep us safe. No problem with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com