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!
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:
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.”
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!