From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Oswald's Request for a Laywer (JFK)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:12:00 GMT

(Derek Abbott) writes...
>(Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>(Dave Lyons) writes...

>>>This is pretty misleading, Mitchell.  The Supreme Court's Miranda
>>>Ruling specifically states that any accused has the right to a lawyer
>>>during questioning. On the other hand, the Miranda Ruling wasn't making
>>>new law but rather was spelling out rights that exist in the constitution
>>>and therefore Derek's question is valid and deserves an answer.

>>       Before Miranda, interrogating suspects without having counsel
>>       present was a very common phenomina. It still happens, and
>>       testimony taken from such interrogations are sometimes allowed
>>       as evidence. A review of _Texas v. Randal Dale Adams_ would
>>       be helpful reminder.

>>       As to your assertion that the _Miranda_ ruling didn't give the
>>       accused any rights that they already didn't possess, you are
>>       dead wrong. All purely legal discussion aside, the _Miranda_
>>       rights were not given to the accused *in practice* until
>>       the ruling was handed down.

>>       Before _Miranda_, there was nothing in the Constitution,
>>       nor in court decisions, that explicitly gave the accused
>>       the various rights asserted by the Superme Court.
>>       The Warren Court wove the Miranda rights from Constitutional
>>       inferences and from bits and pieces of common law, just as
>>       the Marshall Court gave itself the right of supreme judicial
>>       review from Constitutional inference and implication.

>I remember in the Clay Shaw trial a big deal was made out of the fact
>that he didn't have a lawyer present when he admitted to having the alias
>"Clay Bertrand."  As a result this bit of evidence was not permitted
>in court. Was this pre or post Miranda?

	Post _Miranda_.

>Were they legally correct in ignoring the "Clay Bertrand" admission?

	There was a hearing before judge Haggerty as to whether the
	"admission" should be admitted as evidence. According to
	Brener and Kirkwood, the officer who filled out the card
	managed to convince the judge not only that the interrogation
	was handled illegally, but that the officer was lying
	about the whole alias thing. It didn't help when the 
	second "admission" of Shaw's "alias" was shown to be
	a forgery in the trial. On the whole, the exclusion was
	legal.


>According to Jim Garrison, he didn't think it was legal. He felt they were
>making up the law to suit themselves.

	Compare Garrison's account of the trial to Brener's, Kirkwood's,
	or Epstein's. 

	
	

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2608 alt.conspiracy:9291 sci.skeptic:13027