Obama legal team wants defendants’ rights limited
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
The administration’s action — and several others — have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat’s call for change during the 2008 campaign.
Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the “state secrets” privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.
The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meager benefits.” The government said defendants who don’t wish to talk to police don’t have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers’ questions.
At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision “only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions.”
The administration’s legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.
The administration’s position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens’ 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.
“Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information,” said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration’s position “is disappointing, no question.”
Bright said that poor defendants’ constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. “I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes,” said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration’s position.
Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.
Eleven states also are echoing the administration’s call to overrule the 1986 case.
Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.
Montejo’s lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department’s brief.
Related News
High court to decide if plea should be tossed because of incorrect legal advice on deportationOctober 13th, 2009 Court to decide constitutionality of bad adviceWASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices on Tuesday questioned whether defendants should expect their lawyers to correctly advise them on all the possible consequences of a guilty plea, including on important issues like deportation. Jose Padilla, who was born in Honduras, wants the high court to throw out his 2001 guilty plea to drug charges in Kentucky.
Supreme Court to review parts of law barring "material support" to terrorist groupsSeptember 30th, 2009 High court to review parts of anti-terrorism lawWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will consider whether portions of a law that makes it a crime to provide "material support or resources" to designated terrorist groups are unconstitutional. The justices said Wednesday they will hear the Obama administration's appeal of an appeals court ruling that declared parts of the law unconstitutionally vague.
Arizona Supreme Court rejects religious defense claim in pot possession caseSeptember 8th, 2009 Ariz. court rejects religious defense for pot usePHOENIX — A man isn't entitled to use Arizona's religious-freedom law to overturn his conviction for possessing marijuana while driving, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The unanimous ruling rejected Danny Ray Hardesty's argument that he was entitled to use the same defense allowed for peyote use in Native American sacramental rites.
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to block release of detainee abuse photosAugust 7th, 2009 Justice asks high court to block release of photosWASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to block the release of disturbing pictures of detainee abuse on grounds their disclosure could incite violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and endanger U.S. troops there.
After Supreme Court win, gun owners sue DC for right to carry weapons outside homesAugust 7th, 2009 Gun owners sue DC for right to carry weaponsWASHINGTON — The attorney who got the Supreme Court to overturn the District of Columbia's handgun ban is now challenging rules that prohibit gun owners from carrying their weapons outside their homes. Attorney Alan Gura filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the gun laws the city passed in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
Sotomayor defends ruling in case of firefighters who filed reverse discrimination suitJuly 14th, 2009 Sotomayor: Ruling in firefighter case was narrowWASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has defended her ruling against white firefighters who accused the New Haven, Conn., government of engaging in reverse discrimination against them. At the prompting of Democratic Sen.
Federal panel won't reconsider ruling that overturned murder conviction handed down by NJ juryJuly 3rd, 2009 Ruling that overturned NJ murder conviction standsPHILADELPHIA — A federal appeals court will not reconsider its ruling that overturned a murder conviction. In a decision announced Thursday, the 3rd U.S.
NFL goes to Supreme Court for bigger legal victory in antitrust case involving merchandiseJune 27th, 2009 NFL asks for court ruling on merchandise caseWASHINGTON — In the legal equivalent of running up the score, the National Football League is going to the Supreme Court in search of a bigger victory in an antitrust tussle over team merchandise than it already won from a lower court. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday whether it will hear the case, which involves American Needle Inc.'s challenge to the league's exclusive contract for selling headwear such as caps and hats with team logos on them.
Supreme Court sides with defendants in dispute over use of crime lab reports at trialJune 25th, 2009 Court rules for defendants on crime lab reportsWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Thursday that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other evidence used at trial. The court ruled 5-4 for a defendant who was convicted of cocaine trafficking, partly because of crime lab analysis.
US moving to overturn ruling that Bagram detainees can use US courts to seek releaseJune 12th, 2009 US moving to appeal Bagram detention rulingWASHINGTON — The Obama administration is moving to appeal a ruling that some detainees at a military air base in Afghanistan can use U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention.
Correction: Supreme Court-Tyco Convictions storyJune 9th, 2009 Correction: Supreme Court-Tyco Convictions storyWASHINGTON — In a June 8 story about the Supreme Court's rejection of appeals by former Tyco executives L. Dennis Kozlowski and former CFO Mark Swartz, The Associated Press reported erroneously that the court's action ends efforts to overturn their fraud and larceny convictions.
NYC man charged with threatening to "blow up" Obama, Supreme Court nominee SotomayorJune 5th, 2009 NYC man charged with threatening Obama, SotomayorNEW YORK — A Manhattan man who threatened to kill U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and said he wanted to kill President Barack Obama has been arraigned on charges of making a terroristic threat.
NRA asks Supreme Court to overturn Chicago handgun ban, apply Constitution to states, citiesJune 4th, 2009 Rifle group appeals handgun ban to high courtWASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to strike down strict gun control laws in the Chicago area, setting the stage for another high court battle over Second Amendment protections for gun owners. The NRA wants the court to rule that last year's gun rights decision invalidating a handgun ban in the District of Columbia applies as well to local and state laws.
For a second time, appeals court bars British Guantanamo prisoners from suing US officialsApril 24th, 2009 Appeals court tosses Gitmo suit _ againWASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday for a second time rejected a lawsuit by Guantanamo Bay detainees who say they were tortured and denied religious rights. Four British men say they were beaten, shackled in painful stress positions and threatened by dogs during their time at the U.S.
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to overturn ruling favorable to criminal defendantsApril 23rd, 2009 Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rightsWASHINGTON — The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups. While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W.
Loading ...