RSS
Home
Goodbye Jackson
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Supreme Court, AP Photo
Scanning the major news networks, one would be hard-pressed to find a story concerning a recent Supreme Court decision. There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about that, as many Supreme Court decisions are only shown and discussed on channels like CSPAN. This, however, is no run of the mill court ruling. With all the redundant legislation in America, it seems that the Supreme Court believes our rights are the most expendable and there is no need for an umbrella over said rights to protect them from being taken away. This would be somewhat understandable if we lived in the America of a decade ago, but today’s government is not one that has showed itself as being too intent on protecting our constitution in the first place. Between the Patriot Act, Obama and his chief of staff’s strange mumblings against the second and thirteenth amendment, free-speech zones, warrantless searches, redefinitions of the word “torture” and ongoing police brutality, those rights are on thin ice. Ice which the Supreme Court has now began chipping away at.
On May 26th 2009, the Supreme Court came to a decision in Montejo v. Louisiana. This decision was a 5-4 vote to overturn Michigan v. Jackson (1986). The Jackson ruling safeguarded our Sixth Amendment rights, by not allowing police officers to continue interrogation of a person who has requested an attorney at arraignment, unless the person in question initiates the conversation. Scalia wrote the opinion and, not surprisingly, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy voted with him.
Michigan v. Jackson was decided by the Supreme Court due to the gap in Miranda rights involving the sometimes overlooked Sixth Amendment rights defendants are granted. Miranda rights, which stem from the 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, are meant to protect our Fifth Amendment rights. They ensure that during a custodial interrogation defendants will be informed that they have the right to council. This was done in order to remind police that the Fifth Amendment was more than mere words, it would be enforced. While Miranda re-enforced our Fifth Amendment, which only pertains to one type of interview by police, the Sixth Amendment is more general and refers to our right to counsel throughout the entire trial. This is where the Michigan v. Jackson ruling comes into play. Based upon the ruling in that case, once a trial reaches arraignment, should the defendant request an attorney it must be provided them, and previous Miranda waivers no longer apply.
In Scalia's defense, the Supreme Court did not, as some conspiracy bloggers and hosts have suggested, rid us of our Miranda Rights. The Michigan v. Jackson ruling is not the same thing as the Miranda v. Arizona ruling. One applies to people who have waived their right to an attorney in the initial custodial interrogation and request a lawyer at or after their arraignment. The other applies to our right to an attorney during that initial custodial interrogation. One must also keep in mind that in the case of Montejo v. Louisiana, the defendant had already waived his Miranda rights, confessed to the murder of Lewis Ferrari and, at a police officer’s suggestion, written an apology letter to the man’s wife while taking police out to search for the murder weapon. The problem in this case was that the defendant, without his knowledge, had been appointed a public defender before he led police on this search, and therefore was represented, however without a lawyer present at the time the letter was written. To many in the courts, this might have seemed like another loophole for criminals to utilize in a last ditch effort to have their verdicts overturned (Montejo was sentenced to death by the state of Louisiana). However, we cannot make or break the rules society has agreed upon by looking solely at those who do not deserve to be freed. The courts should always take the innocent into consideration when making such a ruling. They are no strangers to precedent, and know what the aftermath will be. Had the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Michigan v. Jackson, that would not have automatically set Montejo free. Do not forget that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Jackson case affirmed his conviction. He was not released.
How did Scalia and co. justify overturning this protection of our Sixth Amendment rights? Apparently, they did it by pleading stupidity. Scalia, it appears, does not fully understand the 1986 ruling. He stated that the Jackson ruling meant; “once a defendant is represented by counsel, police may not initiate any further interrogation.” That is not the case. All the Jackson ruling does is grant the defendant the right to ask for an attorney. Once they have consulted with said attorney, interrogation may resume. Scalia also falsely claimed that the law was so redundant it was unnecessary and that it had only been around for twenty some odd years, so it wasn’t really important.
Perhaps it isn’t important or necessary. Looking at the America of today, it seems like our rights are only on paper anyway. When people congregate nonviolently in dissent of a government decision they are routinely bombarded and assaulted by riot police decked out in full militaristic apparel; When the people have an objection to the use of torture, the definition of torture is re-vamped and business goes on as usual; When a police officer becomes abusive, we don’t really seem to care, we just watch the trial when there is one and the innocent verdict being read then go back to our lives; When the government presents a piece of legislature like the Patriot Act which strips us of so many fundamental rights, Democrat and Republican politicians alike rally to its defense. So what is one little Supreme Court decision undermining rights we have long ago forfeited? In the end, Scalia, like Bush and Obama, are merely relying on the apathy of the people to go about their work unchallenged. It seems thus far to be a sound political strategy, as we the people are certainly apathetic.
Related Articles:
Comments
