It took six separate opinions for a divided Supreme Court to rule that 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 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,” CNN reports here. You can read the opinion in the case of Oliverio Martinez here.
It took six separate opinions for a divided Supreme Court to rule that 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 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,” CNN reports here. You can read the opinion in the case of Oliverio Martinez here.
Join the conversation!