Miranda Under Scrutiny

Recent posts in both the WSJ Law blog and SCOTUSblog talk about a recent Florida Supreme Court case, Florida v. Powell, where Kevin D. Powell of Tampa was convicted of being a felon who had a gun.  His guilty verdict was based in part on a confession to police that a gun found in the home Powell shared with a girlfriend belonged to him.  Powell was given Miranda warnings by detectives who read from a standard form.  The warning included, "You have a right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions."  Powell agreed to talk to them, and then provided the incriminating statement.  He appealed his conviction, challenging the adequacy of the warning that said 'before answering any questions.'  "The 'before questioning' warning suggests to a reasonable person in the suspect's shoes that he or she can only consult with an attorney before questioning; there is nothing in that statement that suggests the attorney can be present during the actual questioning."  That, the Court said, is a direct violation of the Supreme Court's Miranda decision. [Quotes from both blogs.]

Last week, Justice Thomas issued a stay on the Florida Supreme Court ruling in the case until the U.S. Supreme Court can act on a newly filed petition by the State of Florida on the case.

WSJ Law Blog:  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/06/will-the-supreme-court-remain-silent-on-florida-miranda-case/

SCOTUSblog:  http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/what-does-miranda-require/