General discussion


legal process and justice

By jck ·
It seems that this John Cooey who killed 9 year old Jessica Lunsford in Citrus County, FL might get off because, even though he voluntarily confessed to the crime, he had requested an attorney and not been given one right away. Since he gave the info where to find her and details in that confession, none of it might be admissible in court to convict him.

When a guy is blatantly obviously guilty of the crime, should it be right to let him go just because the information he volunteered (and didn't keep his mouth shut til he got a lawyer like he was told he could in his Miranda warning) is not "admissible" to convict him??

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

73 total posts (Page 2 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

That still doesn't mean anything.

by Oz_Media In reply to here's a bit of the info ...

He ASKED, they are obligated to make some movement toward getting one for hi, but in the meantie they canstill push and prod him for information, EVERYONE says tey want their lawer when arrested, only a small percenage actually end up speaking with a lawyer, most are just shooting their mouth off (you know the old police brutality, false arrest BS you hear from anyone who is handcuffed).

He SHOULD have just simply practiced his rights and NOT said anything until he was provided with an attorney, he gave up his Miranda rights by speaking freely and at will. The police aren't obligated to stop questioning him when he request an attorney, but HE is obligated to stop answering if he wants to retain his rights.

Collapse -

ok then...

by jck In reply to That still doesn't mean a ...

Florida State Constitution
Article I, Section 9. Due Process -

"SECTION 9. Due process.--No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself. "

According to Section 9, you are telling me he should get off scott-free because he was compelled to testify against himself by coercion by law enforcement?

Collapse -

Read it again

by Oz_Media In reply to ok then...

"without due process of law"

Due process, a lwayer was requested and a lawyer will be made available. If you choos eot give up that right in th einterim, you have WILLINGLY deprived yourself.

The police WILL coerce people into speaking anyway, he is STILL entitled to keep silent. He CHOSE not to.

#1 To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
#2 To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: An energy crisis compels fuel conservation. See Synonyms at force.
#3 To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway:

That doesn't mean they can't convince you you will lose anyway. It doesn't mean that if a person chooses to ive up his rights he canot speak on his own behalf. You know the good cop, bad cop routine. It CAN be gruelling and that's exactly what his laywyers are trying to insist happened this time. All of this is on record, though unfortunately not public as of yet. The police could have simply made some factual statements that made him give up and speak freely. You know exactly how nasty the media can be and how they will warp a tory to be more saleable. We'll see what really happened in time I am sure.

But my only point is that even if he asked for a lawyer, all they have to do is make an attempt to find him one and they can keep him in the interrogation room for hours while they throw little suggestions at him, THIS is exactly how some of the biggest murders in history have been solved. THis is why you see lawyers on TV that get all pissed off when their client is held for questioning, they know what happens in in terrogation rooms. If you've never seen one, it's one **** of a hard act to follow. Even the paint colour is specifically chosen to help break people down.

Collapse -

by TonytheTiger In reply to ok then...

Answering police questions is not "testifying".

Collapse -

Answering police questions

by Oz_Media In reply to

Is a form of testimonial. Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law. You speak, you create testimony, whether for or against yourself. Those statement WIL be used as testimonials in court.

Collapse -

by antuck In reply to IF the police read him te ...

I'd have to aggree with OZ. Since he was read his rights he knew that what he was saying could be used. The police don't have to stop talking or asking questions. It is up to the person to shut up and wait for a lawyer. Even though he did ask for a lawyer he should have kept his mouth shut. I would really find it hard to belive that if asking for a lawyer and then speaking, because a lawyer wasn't present the information would be tossed out. I would think that if this is the case, more criminals would do this to get off. I certianly hope that our criminals have more rights then the victim judical system knows this also.

If not then let the good ole boys get to him. As a matter of fact, lets just let the good ole boys get him. It wouldn't cost tax payers much money maybe a couple of cases of beer. And we'll know for sure justice was servered. As it is now, if convicted, he'll serve time in a rehab costing tax payers millions.

Collapse -

It only works if

by Oz_Media In reply to legal process and justice

He can have doctors prove he was not of sound mind and body when breaching his rights. That is why you are always asked if you understand your rights.

Whether he gets away on THAT or not, he will have a solid foundation to plead insanity even though it was without dout rpemeditated and he was well aware that it was wrong when he did it.

The sanity loopholes in the system are the real problem. ANYONE who commits murder of a 9 year old is insane, do we let them ALL off then? No, we should be held acouuntable unless it can be proven that the accused is mentally incapable f determining right from wrong EVER, not just the temp insanity plea. We added it to resolve issues where really disturbed people with serious mental deficiency didn't end up in a jail with a regular population.

It has been dragged out and abused by legal teams veer since, a loophole is a scapegoat.

I think the guy is the sickest and creepiest man to walk the Earth in 2005. He should be put into generla population in a medium security prison where he can have a taste of his own medicine. Convicts in for robbery and manslaughetr don't take too well to kiddie killers, in fact, that's the bottom of the barrel in jail, women and children are a no no even for those guys.

Instead it will be the looney country club and the real mentally ill patients that actually need the attention will not get it because it's full of wannabe nutbags. It's lose lose lose for everyone but the convicted.

Tell you what, drive him up to Canada and let him walk free, for a few minutes anyway, we'll sort him out.

Collapse -

Not necessarily, Oz

by jck In reply to It only works if

Remember: As a part of the Miranda warning, you are also told that "at any time, you may exercise this right" being that you can stop answering and ask for an attorney.

If he requested an attorney and they did not stop asking questions and he did not get an attorney, they legally "violated" his rights.

This guy might walk. I pity him if he does. I have a feeling the "good ole boy" network in Citrus will lynch him if he walks free.

Collapse -

It was the polygraph

by Oz_Media In reply to Not necessarily, Oz

HE apparently asked for a lawyer before taking a polygraph test. IF he holds firm and demands a lawyer BEFORE taking the test, "No I will not tae any tests until I have spoken with a lawyer". then it's inadmissible.

IN HIS case, he asked for a lawyer and was apparently told he COULD have a lawyer but it wouldn't help at that point in time, which it really wouldn't, he had already confessed to BURYING HER ALIVE, but his timeline was sketchy so they wanted to find out what was true and what wasn't. He then let them strap on teh cuff and tips and he took a polygraph test while openly answering questions. WHY? WHy wouldn't he refuse? Why wouldn't he INSIST on having a lawyer present?

Th epolice use all kids of semeingly underhanded tricks to get confessions out of people,including bold faced lies that are completely legal in an interrogation of a suspect.

They MAY convince you to give up your rights, it is NOT unlawful though. IN HIS case, he requested a lawyer, if it had been granted it may have taken hours if not a day to get him one, then several weeks before he was to be prepared for a polygraph. During this time a lawyer can tell you ways ot get around the test (it's really not THAT hard once youknow what they test for you can simply throw the wrong signlas to questions such as your name etc. that defile the rest of the testimony. Cops will try and coerce you to speak up anyway, "you're guilty, no lawyer is gonna buy your case, you've already admitted to killing her" etc. This is legal. If he was talked into, or even conned into taking polygraph tests. He still took them and spoke out regardless of his previous request, which they MAY have even been filling hwile he gave up the information.

But the key point is, he had already said he had her three days, he said he buried her alive after taking her from her unlocked home in Florida.

LOOPHOLES like this are exactly WHY Jessica died to begin with. Police were at his door but unable to search his home without a confession or more evidence. She was apprently STILL alive in his closet while police were at the door, unable to legally proceed further.

He was not forced to offer information, he was coerced into it. IF they can show that they had even filed a request to obtain lawyer for him during that time, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

This is the fine line where you are going astray:
"If he requested an attorney and they did not stop asking questions and he did not get an attorney, they legally "violated" his rights."

They HAVEN'T violated his rights, HE gave them up.
They can ask all the questions they want, it is up to YOU to practice your right to not respond and you cannot be forcibly made to respond. He was coerced into responding, not forced. He offered the information freely and while attached to a polygraph, HIS mistake, not the, that's basic interrogation. They are just looking for lopholes in a law when the accused is most definitely doin the long haul.

Here's one for you though, even AFTER admitting he took her from her home, he kept her several days and fed her and then buried her alive, and even went as far to say he was so sorry...he STILL said he's not guilty of murder!?

You should read up on the old Clifford Olsen case, he was a neighbour of mine at one time, the neighbourhood kids, including my own son, played in his yard, A very nice neighbour, a great guy and yet a child molester. He was sitting in a secured and safe cell away from general population for years, everytime he offered moer info on another murder they gave him thousands of dollars, unltimately making his family quite rich.

I remember one picture of his cell was in the paper one day, it was like a large hotel room, big screen TV, bookshelf with great literature etc. They soon stopped following his little game and now he sits and festers alone.

In the case of Couey, he was not forced to give a statement or take a polygraph. even if the lie detector is found inadmissible due to some ridiculous reason, his earlier confession will be allowed but subject to sanity questioning.

Collapse -

It depends.

by TonytheTiger In reply to Not necessarily, Oz

The warning is required. Once the warning has been given, he may either talk or not. If he requests an attorney, the police must stop asking, and get him one. As long as they follow this, if he talks, the police can use the information.

Back to Community Forum
73 total posts (Page 2 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums