Arizona Supreme Court drives wedge in right to remain silent. However, I
don't know enough about trial procedure to understand if the prosecution
made errors here.

In 2019, in a parking lot outside a church service, a man saw the
pastor's son, asked him if he were the pastor's son, then shot at him
twice. Fortunately he missed both shots. He was taken into custody
by policy and Mirandized before being questioned. The first time, the perpetrator invoked his right to remain silent. He was Mirandized and questioned a second time; it's not clear if this was the same day or the
next day. He was inforned that he was going to jail. He offered to answer
some questions but not others. He claimed self defense,

Part of the problem is that the article Steve Lehto is commenting on
doesn't make everything clear about what happened at trial. The man
claimed self defense at trial and took the stand. Now, once he took the
stand, in cross examination, the prosecution was able to ask him about questions of the police he had not answered. In closing arguments, the prosecution reminded the jury how not answering those questions made him
look guilty.

This isn't clear to me. Despite having been Mirandized twoice, are the
police allowed to start a second round of questioning?

At trial, if he hadn't taken the stand, would the prosecution have been
allowed to raise the issue in closing arguments that he hadn't answered
certain police questions? Even before Miranda rights were significantly narrowed, if the defendant takes the stand, was the prosecution
restricted from raising the fact that he answered some questions and not
others in cross examination and closing argument?

I'm not sure if the right to remain silent has been further narrowed or
not here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuTI4LeJkRk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/2/2025 6:31 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Arizona Supreme Court drives wedge in right to remain silent. However, I don't know enough about trial procedure to understand if the prosecution
made errors here.

In 2019, in a parking lot outside a church service, a man saw the
pastor's son, asked him if he were the pastor's son, then shot at him
twice. Fortunately he missed both shots. He was taken into custody
by policy and Mirandized before being questioned. The first time, the perpetrator invoked his right to remain silent. He was Mirandized and questioned a second time; it's not clear if this was the same day or the
next day. He was inforned that he was going to jail. He offered to answer some questions but not others. He claimed self defense,

Part of the problem is that the article Steve Lehto is commenting on
doesn't make everything clear about what happened at trial. The man
claimed self defense at trial and took the stand. Now, once he took the stand, in cross examination, the prosecution was able to ask him about questions of the police he had not answered. In closing arguments, the prosecution reminded the jury how not answering those questions made him
look guilty.

This isn't clear to me. Despite having been Mirandized twoice, are the
police allowed to start a second round of questioning?

As long as he hadn't invoked the right to have an attorney representing
him present, yes. This actually happens a lot.

At trial, if he hadn't taken the stand, would the prosecution have been allowed to raise the issue in closing arguments that he hadn't answered certain police questions?

I suspect it would depend on whether or not they had called the
interrogating peace officer to the stand and had them testify about what
the suspect did and did not answer.

Even before Miranda rights were significantly
narrowed, if the defendant takes the stand, was the prosecution
restricted from raising the fact that he answered some questions and not others in cross examination and closing argument?

I'm not sure if the right to remain silent has been further narrowed or
not here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuTI4LeJkRk

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 2, 2025 at 6:31:15 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Arizona Supreme Court drives wedge in right to remain silent. However, I don't know enough about trial procedure to understand if the prosecution
made errors here.

In 2019, in a parking lot outside a church service, a man saw the
pastor's son, asked him if he were the pastor's son, then shot at him
twice. Fortunately he missed both shots. He was taken into custody
by policy and Mirandized before being questioned. The first time, the perpetrator invoked his right to remain silent. He was Mirandized and questioned a second time; it's not clear if this was the same day or the
next day. He was inforned that he was going to jail. He offered to answer some questions but not others. He claimed self defense

I don't understand why the Arizona Supreme Court thinks it has the authority
to overrule SCOTUS precedent with regard to Miranda, which specifically says that the right can be invoked AT ANY TIME, even after questioning has begun
and the defendant has answered some questions.

This is the USSS Miranda warning that I used:

You have the right to remain silent.

If you choose to speak, anything you say can and most likely
will be used against you in future court proceedings.

You have the right to consult with an attorney before answering
any questions and to have your attorney present during questioning.

If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney
will be appointed for you by the federal government at no
cost to you.

You may answer questions now and waive your right to remain
silent and to have an attorney present.

If you decide to talk to me now and answer my questions, you
still have the right to stop answering questions at any time and
for any reason.

With these rights in mind, will you answer my questions?

Note that a suspect is specifically told that answering some questions now
does not abrogate his right to invoke the 5th Amendment at some time down the line and stop answering questions in the future.

So I'm not sure why the Arizona court thinks it has the authority to take away from that and hold suspects responsible for invoking their rights in mid-interrogation.

Part of the problem is that the article Steve Lehto is commenting on
doesn't make everything clear about what happened at trial. The man
claimed self defense at trial and took the stand. Now, once he took the stand, in cross examination, the prosecution was able to ask him about questions of the police he had not answered. In closing arguments, the prosecution reminded the jury how not answering those questions made him
look guilty.

This isn't clear to me. Despite having been Mirandized twice, are the
police allowed to start a second round of questioning?

The police can keep questioning as long as they like under Miranda. It's the invocation of the 6th Amendment right to counsel that requires police stop questioning. So long as all they've done is read him Miranda and he hasn't asked for a lawyer, they can keep questioning all they want.

At trial, if he hadn't taken the stand, would the prosecution have been allowed to raise the issue in closing arguments that he hadn't answered certain police questions? Even before Miranda rights were significantly narrowed, if the defendant takes the stand, was the prosecution
restricted from raising the fact that he answered some questions and not others in cross examination and closing argument?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 2, 2025 at 8:01:52 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 4/2/2025 6:31 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Arizona Supreme Court drives wedge in right to remain silent. However, I
don't know enough about trial procedure to understand if the prosecution
made errors here.

In 2019, in a parking lot outside a church service, a man saw the
pastor's son, asked him if he were the pastor's son, then shot at him
twice. Fortunately he missed both shots. He was taken into custody
by policy and Mirandized before being questioned. The first time, the
perpetrator invoked his right to remain silent. He was Mirandized and
questioned a second time; it's not clear if this was the same day or the
next day. He was inforned that he was going to jail. He offered to answer >> some questions but not others. He claimed self defense,

Part of the problem is that the article Steve Lehto is commenting on
doesn't make everything clear about what happened at trial. The man
claimed self defense at trial and took the stand. Now, once he took the
stand, in cross examination, the prosecution was able to ask him about
questions of the police he had not answered. In closing arguments, the
prosecution reminded the jury how not answering those questions made him
look guilty.

This isn't clear to me. Despite having been Mirandized twoice, are the
police allowed to start a second round of questioning?

As long as he hadn't invoked the right to have an attorney representing
him present, yes. This actually happens a lot.

At trial, if he hadn't taken the stand, would the prosecution have been
allowed to raise the issue in closing arguments that he hadn't answered
certain police questions?

I suspect it would depend on whether or not they had called the
interrogating peace officer to the stand and had them testify about what
the suspect did and did not answer.

That's dangerously close to hearsay.

The cop could probably get away with saying that the suspect answered some questions but not others. But any specificity as to *which* questions were answered would be questionable. The cop certainly couldn't answer *how* the defendant answered the questions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)