weed...

[Bulldog_10]

A close friend of mine was recently arrested for 2 counts of unlawful distribution of narcotics (or something like that, don't remember the technical name for it).

Now, he is charged with a class A felony (twice), and faces 7-15 years in prison if convicted.

Here is how it happened:

They busted some guy that he deals with who happened to have an 1/8 on him. The cops gave him shit and told him he was going to jail unless he told them where he got the weed. So the guy cracked and gave them my buddies name. Then they paid the guy to go buy some more, and after he bought it...the cops raided my buddies house, tore it up and found 2 ounces of weed. They also took $9000 cash (which wasn't even his), all his bank statements and his cell phone.

They gave my buddy the same shit they gave the first guy: give someone else up, and they'll let him go. But he told them to screw. He hired a lawyer for $5000 and the lawyer said there is a 15% chance that he can get him off without a felony charge. And if they end up going to court, that's gonna cost him another $5000.

Now, to me this seems like complete bullshit. 2 ounces of weed isn't anything! And I don't know why they're giving him such a hard time. He has no prior record or anything like that, he has a well-paying job so he can claim the money.

One more thing, they never read him his rights if that matters...which I doubt.

Anyone been through anything like this before? Any advice?

 

[nice6pac]

56 grams thats 56 doses major distribution ring did they test the weed? they hav eto present teh results before trial if they don;t test it he is scott free you would be suprised if he is ina high traffic area

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

In the instant case, the only issue with regard to being Mirandized is whether the defendant made any statements.

The Miranda warnings are substantively the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel in one's defense. The Supreme Court having already ruled on the issue of self-incrimination in Brown v. Mississippi and the issue of the right to counsel in criminal cases in Gideon v. Wainwright, the issue in Miranda was the extent to which law enforcement must advise a person of those rights.

There are two prerequisites which make it necessary for law enforcement to advise one of the Miranda rights, as fashioned by the Supreme Court (arguably out of whole cloth, according to some legal commentators), in 1966 in the case of Miranda v. Arizona: 1) custody, and 2) interrogation.

Ernesto Miranda, an individual with a prior criminal record, was a bad guy who had kidnapped and raped a Phoenix woman who later identified him in a police lineup. After two hours of interrogation by police, Miranda confessed to his crimes. Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority stated that: ". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

Both the issues of what constitutes custody and interrogation can become grey areas. Law Enforcement can be quite cagey in their efforts to elicit admissions, as evidenced by the infamous murder case of ten year old Pamela Powers (Nix v. Williams), commonly referred to as "The Christian Burial Case."

Any such statements which are obtained in violation of the Miranda holding are subject to suppression from evidence pursuant to the so-called Exclusionary Rule, extended to the States by the Warren Court's Mapp decision of 1961 (Mapp v. Ohio).

If one doesn't make any statements, the issue of law enforcement failing to advise of the Miranda warning is of no consequence.

Regards,

RW

 

[Bulldog_10]

In the instant case, the only issue with regard to being Mirandized is whether the defendant made any statements.

The Miranda warnings are substantively the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel in one's defense. The Supreme Court having already ruled on the issue of self-incrimination in Brown v. Mississippi and the issue of the right to counsel in criminal cases in Gideon v. Wainwright, the issue in Miranda was the extent to which law enforcement must advise a person of those rights.

There are two prerequisites which make it necessary for law enforcement to advise one of the Miranda rights, as fashioned by the Supreme Court (arguably out of whole cloth, according to some legal commentators), in 1966 in the case of Miranda v. Arizona: 1) custody, and 2) interrogation.

Ernesto Miranda, an individual with a prior criminal record, was a bad guy who had kidnapped and raped a Phoenix woman who later identified him in a police lineup. After two hours of interrogation by police, Miranda confessed to his crimes. Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority stated that: ". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

Both the issues of what constitutes custody and interrogation can become grey areas. Law Enforcement can be quite cagey in their efforts to elicit admissions, as evidenced by the infamous murder case of ten year old Pamela Powers (Nix v. Williams), commonly referred to as "The Christian Burial Case."

Any such statements which are obtained in violation of the Miranda holding are subject to suppression from evidence pursuant to the so-called Exclusionary Rule, extended to the States by the Warren Court's Mapp decision of 1961 (Mapp v. Ohio).

If one doesn't make any statements, the issue of law enforcement failing to advise of the Miranda warning is of no consequence.

Regards,

RW

Thanks bro...karma to ya!

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

Thanks, I'm glad to help. Below an article regarding Chavez v, Martinez, just decided by the Supreme Court last Tuesday..The article is prefaced with a sidebar outlining the basi Miranda warning.

regards,

RW


Divided court rules for police on Miranda
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Posted: 10:04 PM EDT (0204 GMT)


BASIC MIRANDA WARNING
• You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
• Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.
• You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
• If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
• If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.


RESOURCES
• Opinion: U.S. v. Patane
• Opinion: Miranda v. Arizona

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has given law enforcement greater legal leeway in questioning criminal suspects but promises to revisit the issue of protecting the rights of individuals against self-incrimination.

A divided court Tuesday ruled a California police officer did not violate the constitutional rights of a wounded suspect who was questioned without having his Miranda rights read to him. Those rights say in part, "You have the right to remain silent."

But justices also concluded the suspect may be able to collect damages because his due process rights were violated during a hospital room interrogation. That part of the ruling was sent back to a lower federal court for further consideration.

The case could have implications in the federal government's ongoing war against terrorism, in which hundreds of people in the United States have reportedly been detained and questioned without any charges being brought.

But justices never answered a central question in the case: whether law enforcement officials can be held liable if they coerce self-incriminating information, including confessions, out of defendants when those statements are never used in court.

Oliverio Martinez, an Oxnard farm worker, was detained in 1997 by police who were investigating illegal drugs. Authorities claim Martinez resisted arrest, and during an ensuing struggle was shot and seriously wounded by an officer who feared Martinez had a gun.

Another officer, Sgt. Ben Chavez, obtained a taped confession during the ambulance ride, and in the hospital emergency room. Chavez repeatedly pressed Martinez for information, despite the wounded man's protests that he was in pain, and despite hospital staff asking Chavez several times to leave Martinez alone.

No Miranda warnings were given to Martinez, and no charges were ever filed against him. He was blinded and partially paralyzed as a result of the incident.

Chavez claims he pressed Martinez so hard because he feared the suspect would die from his wounds. Martinez later denied the taped confession he gave in which he admitted grabbing an officer's gun. Later courts found Martinez's confession was coerced and that he could sue the police for damages in civil court.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas noted, "There is no evidence that Chavez acted with a purpose to harm Martinez by intentionally interfering with his medical treatment."

He added, "The fact that Martinez did not know his statements [to police] could not be used against him does not change our view that no violation of Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause occurred here."

But Thomas warned that does not mean "police torture or other abuse that results in a confession is constitutionally permissible so long as the statements are not used at trial." Thomas said no such abuse occurred in the Martinez case.

Decision could affect U.S. war on terror
In sharp dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the decision "undermines" the constitutional idea protecting self-incrimination, and said it was clear the officer took advantage of Martinez's condition to get a statement.

"To tell our whole legal system that when conducting a criminal investigation police officials can use severe compulsion or even torture with no present violation of the right against compelled self-incrimination can only diminish a celebrated provision in the Bill of Rights," Kennedy said.

Justice John Paul Stevens went further, arguing the interrogation was "the functional equivalent" of using torture to get an involuntary confession from a suspect.

Six different justices issued opinions in the case.

This decision could be used as a precedent in the ongoing legal wrangling over hundreds of mostly Middle Eastern and Muslim men, some still being held in secret by the government. They were rounded up across the country in the days and months following the September 11, 2001, attacks, as the government sought any potential connection to the worldwide terror network, al Qaeda. Many of those jailed were allegedly interrogated without lawyers present, and without being formally accused of any crime.

Civil rights and legal groups have pressed the courts in recent months to block the government from continuing this sort of questioning of those in secret custody.

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to accept a case involving the Bush administration's decision to hold closed deportation hearings involving hundreds of immigrants, many of them of Arab descent, who were detained shortly after the terror attacks two years ago.

Those detained were labeled "special interest" cases in the government's war on terror. The government had exclusive authority to designate the "special interest" tag and to consequently hold the prisoners in near secrecy while it investigated and processed their cases.

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear three cases looking at the broad application of the Miranda warnings. The original Miranda ruling was handed down by justices in 1966.

 

[scout420]

Bro unless you live in Texas or some place with the 3 trike law and ge busted three times.Your friend will not got to jail for 7-15 years for that.my buddy got caught transporting 26 ponds of weed from jamica by th feds.And he got 5- years and was released in less than two.actually when the statement was wrothe they wrote they caught hime with 22 pounds.Hmmm what happened tothe other 4 pounds.Fuckin pigs go blow

 

[Bulldog_10]

Bro unless you live in Texas or some place with the 3 trike law and ge busted three times.Your friend will not got to jail for 7-15 years for that.my buddy got caught transporting 26 ponds of weed from jamica by th feds.And he got 5- years and was released in less than two.actually when the statement was wrothe they wrote they caught hime with 22 pounds.Hmmm what happened tothe other 4 pounds.Fuckin pigs go blow

Oh I know he won't face that much time in prison, but just the fact that it's possible sucks. Also, being convicted of a felony would fuck up his whole life basically...he just graduated college a few years ago, and is just starting to look for a job to start his career.

 

[drrman]

2 oz of weed shouldn't get your boy shit, i've seen a bro get caught with 2 lbs and got it dropped and expunged. I don't think even max sentencing would be anywhere close to 5 years on 2 oz of weed. more like 30 days

 

[Bulldog_10]

2 oz of weed shouldn't get your boy shit, i've seen a bro get caught with 2 lbs and got it dropped and expunged. I don't think even max sentencing would be anywhere close to 5 years on 2 oz of weed. more like 30 days

He got caught selling, not possessing.

 

[scout420]

He may get busted but I see them downgrading it to a mistermenor and picking up some fines..Just pleabargin dont try to bring it to trial unless you know you can get off.My boy last week had to go to court for driving on the prevoked list and instead of taking a 6 month suspension he took it to trial lost and they nailed him with 3 month suspension 1000 dollar fine and 30 days in county jail...All because he wanted to be a dick and try to beat something that he new he wouldnt be able to

 

[Rick Collins]

Nothing beats kicking ass in court. But as in cards, ya gotta know when to hold 'em ... and know when to fold 'em.