[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is a very brief history of Miranda v. Arizona:

http://crime.about.com/od/police/a/miranda_rights.htm

Essentially, the right to remain silent is not waived if Tsarnaev is not read the Miranda (a right exists independent of whether a person is aware of it); it just means in this case it would then be up to a judge to decide if any information he gave prior to him being informed of those rights covered in the Miranda is admissible in court (I think, but I am not a lawyer, that without the public safety clause being exercised, any information he gave prior to being read the Miranda would automatically not be admissible). The Miranda is just about making sure a suspect is aware of his or her right against self-incrimination.

But in this case it sounds like a non-issue. The public safety exception has a 48 hour limit, which will more than have expired by the time this kid is capable of speaking, and it sounds like there is so much other evidence against him that anything he says will not affect the prosecution's case anyway.

Here's something on Miranda in this case..

The Obama administration has announced that it will employ the little-used public-safety exception to question Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights.

It’s an uncommon justification that the FBI explains dates back to September 11, 1980, and involves neutralizing remaining threats to public safety before “Mirandizing” a suspect.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/20/ho...#ixzz2R7mtEBqO