Skip to content

March 10, 2011

27

no miranda at all?

by Andrea O'Connell

Sometimes things are so unexpected and implausible, it’s easy to fail to really hear what is said – at least for me, that’s the case.

Who could ever imagine that a super-smart detective could forget to read the Miranda Warning when Casey was finally arrested? When I read this today, my heart sank!

If this is true, and if the Orlando Sentinel is correct in their story of March 9, 2011, “Casey Anthony: What were the biggest surprises at hearings?” by Hal Boedeker, no Miranda was read at all!

Boedeker quotes Bob Kealing, as saying Casey was not read her Miranda Warning until the day she was indicted.  Kealing said, “Prosecutors counter that Anthony willingly answered those questions early on and was not subject to Miranda warnings because the suspect, after all, at that time was Zanny the nanny.”

Well, I learned something brand new today!  It is not always necessary for someone to be Mirandized before they are arrested!

Phew!

Yes!  It was legal for Casey to be arrested without Miranda because, as we know, she was not the suspect in the criminal case, Zenaida was.  Casey was arrested for lying to police and endangerment of a child. It was not until her indictment that she was arrested for criminal activity.

The information below explains this quite clearly:

Can you be arrested without being read your Miranda Rights?  Yes!

The Miranda rights do not protect you from being arrested, only from incriminating yourself during questioning. All police need to legally arrest a person is “probable cause” — an adequate reason based on facts and events to believe the person has committed a crime. Police are required to “Read him his (Miranda) rights,” only before interrogating a suspect. While failure to do so may cause any subsequent statements to be thrown out of court, the arrest may still be legal and valid.

Also without reading the Miranda rights, police are allowed to ask routine questions like name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number necessary to establishing a person’s identity. Police can also administer alcohol and drug tests without warning, but persons being tested may refuse to answer questions during the tests.

The Defense team in this case is charging that Casey was in custody as a result of being handcuffed and placed in the “cage” of the police car by Deputy Eberlin.  They also contend that when Casey went with Deputy Acevedo to the Sawgrass Apartments, she had to sit in the back of the car, but that was only as a result of the procedures of traveling in a marked car.  She did not sit in the back of the car with the Detectives, as she was assisting them at the time.

The question goes to the when it can be determined that a reasonable person would think they are in custody, and being “deprived of their freedom of movement.”

When am I in custody?

The most obvious example of being in custody, of course, is when the police say, “You are under arrest.” But you might be in custody even if the police do not say, “You are under arrest.” Generally, the law considers you in custody when you have been arrested or otherwise deprived of your freedom of movement in a significant way. This may occur when an officer is holding you at gunpoint or when several officers are surrounding you. Other examples are when you are in handcuffs or when the police have locked you in the backseat of a police car. There are no absolute rules on when a person is in custody–the test is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would have felt free to leave the scene, and a court will consider all the circumstances. (Emphasis added.)

I believe that Linda Drane Burdick made an excellent case in her cross and in her closing argument, and I really do think Judge Perry will rule in favor of the Prosecution.

More discovery coming tomorrow!

Wesh News advises that more discovery will be released tomorrow.  I haven’t heard what the discovery will contain, but we’ll soon find out!

About these ads
27 Comments Post a comment
  1. Mar 10 2011

    Andrea, I brought the following over from my blog to share with you and your readers. Oct 14th was NOT the first time Casey was Mirandized.
    The following is a link for Casey’s arrest on the check fraud charges. It clearly states that she was read her Miranda rights for the fraud charges on Aug. 29, 2008.

    Casey Anthony’s Fraud Arrest Affivadit
    See bottom of page 15:
    08/29/08:
    1735 hours: I met with Judge Marc Lubet at the Orange County Courthouse and obtained an arrest warrant.

    2135 hours: I responded to 4937 Hopespring Drive and made contact with defendant Anthony. She was placed under arrest and transported to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. I read defendant Anthony her Miranda Rights and she advised that she did not want to speak to me without her lawyer. I terminated my interview and she was transported to BRC with incident.

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      Hi Jonathon! Thank you for supplying this information! I remember reading this now that you mention it…. It sure did sound really, really suspicious (using Yuri’s word!) that there was no Miranda until the indictment! When I read this tonight in the Orlando Sentinel, it was shocking – funny how some in the media don’t check their facts before they sensationalize…. Thank goodness you’re paying attention! You’re the best! :)

      Reply
  2. Mar 10 2011

    Andrea, one other little tidbit. When Casey went before Judge Jordan on July 17/08, the judge ordered a 33 day mental evaluation of her. She was denied bond at that time. The prosecution stated that more formal charges could be laid after the evaluation and, at such time, Casey would request a bond hearing.

    I am trying to figure out what they meant by ‘more formal charges’. It makes one think the original charges were not formal, those being the child neglect, lying to LE and obstructing them in their investigation.

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      Oh, I’d forgotten about the mental health eval. I believe “formal” charges refers to an investigative report with specific and/or additional charges by the State. The police make the “arrest” and the State assigns the charges. When they say formal, they’re referring to what the State Attorney files.

      Reply
  3. Mar 10 2011

    Thanks, Jonathon, for bringing over that info! I was going to leave the link for Andrea here for everyone to see that Casey had been read her rights prior to the 14th of October. This misinformation is like when the media reported that Dr. Lee had found 17 hairs because they reported what Baez had said in court-in truth, he only found 3 hairs per discovery docs. Mason said that Casey was not read her rights until the 14th, and he was half right-she was for the murder of her child. Yet, for the other charges she was aware of her rights by the time she went before the judge the first time.

    From Andrea’s post:
    Police are required to “Read him his (Miranda) rights,” >>>only before interrogating a suspect<<<. According to Melich, Casey was being interviewed but not interrogated. I happen to think the interview at Universal leaned toward interrogation. Judge Perry will decide about that.

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      Hey Sherry, I know what you mean, but the test about whether it’s truly an interrogation is with the person being interrogated. Casey did not act alarmed, she even laughed at one time, she offered them more help by supplying her computer, and she apologized to the three Detectives! This is not indicative of someone being interrogated. That’s another reason why I think the State will prevail.
      If the Defense got Casey on the stand to say how she felt – if she was felt intimidated – they could have done that, too. Though it would have been really risky, it would have been so interesting!

      Reply
      • Mar 10 2011

        Thank you for saying that! Although, I’m not too concerned if the Universal interview gets tossed. The jury may not take kindly to how they talk to her even if they know that she has lied to them. Juries can be full of finicky people.

      • Weezie
        Mar 11 2011

        wow I sure love that funny face on your comment, that really makes sense. A jury would feel sorry for Casey at that point if they hear them bullying her. YOu know why? Because they wouldn’t want that to happen to them. period.

    • Weezie
      Mar 11 2011

      Again I agree.

      Reply
  4. Venice
    Mar 10 2011

    ALL IS GOOD. ALL IS GOOD:)

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      Alleluia! ALL IS GOOD! :mrgreen:

      {sorreee! could not resist!}

      Reply
      • Venice
        Mar 11 2011

        LOL@Sherry. ALL IS GOOD….GIVE PEACE A CHANCE ;)

  5. Mar 10 2011

    Sherry, I am with you in that the interview at Universal was an interrogation. It will be a miracle if Judge Perry lets that interview stay. It seemed to get pretty heated in that room at Universal even tho Casey held her ground quite well. I think LE were at fault by not Mirandizing her once they entered that room. I am betting that they regret not doing that now.

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      I think they were trying to handle her with kid gloves and may have feared she would clam up if they were to read her her rights. At that point it was obvious they knew she was obstructing an investigation with her lies. I strongly believe that LE was hoping Casey would crack when put under arrest. Once they knew about the source of the odor in the trunk, then they had to know she was responsible for Caylee’s death.

      Reply
      • Weezie
        Mar 11 2011

        Sherry they knew about the car before Universal interview. That was a total setup, having a room fitted for interogation. Since they had a strong feeling that Casey was a suspicous person in Caylee’s disappearnce, as much as noone wants to stomach the thought, she by law should have had MIRANDA prior to the LE interview at Universal.
        I guess they never thought twice about it due to what you accurately stated about Casey clamming up if they did read her the Miranda. They knew she was totally lying, but the case law was not on their minds at the time. They were wanting as much information as possible so they could find Caylee. It’s so sad really.

    • Weezie
      Mar 11 2011

      mainstreamfair: I have said that on numerous comments here. I hope I’m wrong, but it is too prejudicial for a fair trial and will be definately the winner on Appeal, if even part of the interview is let in. Hey it’s not needed anyway.

      Reply
  6. Mar 10 2011

    I am almost too embarrassed to write the following….LOL My knowledge of the law is limited but something crossed my mind and when that happens, things can get dangerous. Here goes with what may be a stupid question.
    If someone is picked up off the street for being drunk and disorderly and they are cuffed and taken in by LE and thrown in a cell, are they read their Miranda rights? If they are intoxicated, they wouldn’t remember what LE read to them anyway. This crime would be classed as a misdemeanor. Right? This drunk has to appear before the judge the next morning. Is he read his rights the next morning or is he ever read his rights?

    Was child nelect and lying to police, misdemeanors? I guess you have figured out what I am trying to get at without coming right out and asking my next question.

    The check/fraud was a felony charge, in other words a criminal offense and Casey was read her rights.

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      Exactly! That’s when she was read her rights – for the fraud case. A felony is a serious criminal charge, like murder and rape. As far as a DUI; there are “felony” DUI’s that are crimes. It’s a crime if someone is hurt during a DUI situation. – that’s called Felony DUI”. When ever there’s a felony attached to the crime, it’s very serious. So, your example of the guy who’s drunk, Miranda would not apply. People have to have Miranda read when they are in custody for something they are being charged with, and they have to be held and not free to leave….

      Reply
      • Mar 10 2011

        Casey’s charge of obstructing an investigation would be criminal and we know that she was denied bond but would Miranda apply? In front of the judge it appears she knew her rights for a court appointed lawyer to be assigned to her.

      • Mar 10 2011

        Hey Sherry – No, apparently it wouldn’t. I haven’t ever studied how different wrong-doings are classified…. I think that’s a future post!
        And, you know what, you are absolutely right – she knew she was having a bond hearing and would be appointed a lawyer. I am sure that was part of the booking process….

    • CptKD
      Mar 12 2011

      Being drunk and disorderly does not always lead to one being arrested and brought before a JUDGE.
      Quite often, they are simply detained, tossed into the drunk tank and let out in the morning once they have sobered up.

      If they have committed crimes while under the influence, they will be charged as such, and yes – They will be arrested, read their rights and tossed into the can, until they can be brought before a judge.

      Quite often, there will be an Attorney available that one can speak with before making their first appearance, and that way they are given some advice as to how to proceed from there – Usually it’s to ask for a continuance, so that one may seek out representation…

      As per Canada’s Criminal Code, in the Charter of Rights section, it clearly states,
      that upon ARREST OR DETENTION, everyone has the right to:
      (a) be informed promptly of the reason(s) therefor;
      (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to BE INFORMED of that right;
      (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of ‘habeas corpus’ and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

      Habeas Corpus – A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

      I would imagine that the same applies in the US, just under a different Mandate …
      I also believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, that in the US, unless the Police are going to INTERROGATE an idividual, they do not necessarily have to read one their rights.
      Especially where the crimes they are being charged with, are not as serious or felonious.

      In Canada, the minute the crime(s) become Crimnial Code matters, as opposed to Provincial Offenses, the individual’s rights MUST be read upon arrest, along with WHY they are being arrested and detained.

      Not sure if that helps any –
      Again, I’m not very well versed in US Law.

      CptKD

      Reply
  7. Mar 10 2011

    Andrea, my old drunk fella is being charged with being drunk and disorderly in a public place. Let’s just say it is his 2nd or 3rd offense.

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      Well, I believe your drunken friend would have his license suspended for the second arrest; and for the third… I think they may even take away the license for good….

      Reply
  8. Mar 10 2011

    They did a 33 day mental evaluation on Casey to see if she needed to be Baker Acted. I would like to know what the state meant by the ‘more formal charges. That info came from an article on July 17/08 and IIRC it was at Orlando Sentinel. The link may be at my blog or Dave’s… I am always in flight and seldom touch down long enough to know where I am… I do not chart any flight plans so I get lost…

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      LOL! You seem to be on a clear course, my friend! Ain’t no grass growing under you! :) Formal charges are what the State Attorney files. They have a certain amount of time to file, but I’m not sure how much time… I have some more research to do on this subject!

      Reply
  9. Mar 10 2011

    Andrea, me again. My drunk was not driving so it wasn’t a DUI. He was intoxicated and being rowdy in a public place and that is considered a misdemeanor, I guess. I am doing my utmost to justify why Casey may not have been read her rights on July 16/08. I noticed the look on Yuri Melich’s face when Mason mentioned the Miranda rights being read for the first time on Oct 14th. Mason did add for Murder One but then paused. I think he was purposely being deceptive in the way he stated his words. He is a cunning old fool.

    Reply
    • Mar 10 2011

      Ahhhhh… it was a topsy-turvy-drunk-on-turf? That’s a much better kind of drunk to be, if one has to drink at all, that is!! Oh, yeah, Mason puts on the drama and the faux Southern charm as strong as the whiskey in his mint julep!

      I know what you mean about trying to justify this… Judge Perry has a lot to weigh in this situation. I’m sure he’s looking at a lot of case law, too. I can hardly wait to read his ruling! It is going to be so interesting…. Darn, I wish he’d hurry up! LOL!

      Reply

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 460 other followers

%d bloggers like this: