Heidi Jones, the former TV weathercaster charged with making false rape claims (we've covered her story extensively here: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-york-tv-meteorologist-arrested-for.html) could go free after prosecutors admitted Wednesday that she was questioned by cops without being read her rights.
"The District Attorney has now confirmed no Miranda warnings were ever given to Heidi Jones," defense lawyer Paul Callan said. Manhattan prosecutors admit in legal papers that Jones was never read the Miranda warning, but insist it's a non-issue because she was not under arrest. "The defendant was not in custody at the time her statements were made," Assistant District Attorney Shanda Strain wrote in court papers. "Miranda warnings were not required and the statements taken [from] the defendant was lawfully obtained." Prosecutors also said the statements were given "in the context of a criminal investigation she initiated."
___________________
Without the benefit of reading the legal papers filed in court and researching the issue, I will not venture an opinion regarding the correct legal outcome. But let's make two general points:
(1) Just as no civilized person wants to see a rapist get away with rape, no civilized person wants to see a false rape accuser get away with lying to police about a matter so serious. After all, if we insist on treating rape as a serious crime, we must also insist that when the power to cry rape is abused, it must punished as a serious crime.
(2) If Ms. Jones' Constitutional rights were violated (and I am not saying they were), and if there is no good case without self-incriminating statements unlawfully obtained, then the case must be dismissed. Excluding evidence, and letting people accused of a crime go free because they were deprived of their Constitutional rights are sometimes necessary. The Miranda warning isn't some procedural loophole concocted for the benefit of criminals. It is a crucial protection devised to safeguard the innocent. It was devised to insure that a self-incriminatory statement was made as a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of bedrock Constitutional rights. This prophylactic device must be fairly applied to everyone, even to people who seem likely guilty.
Source regarding Ms. Jones: thttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_heidi_jones_exwabc_weather_anchor_could_have_alleged_false_statements_to_cops_ab.html
Posts
10 comments:
OT- Oh look! Cameron Diaz is playing a sex crazed school teacher. No doubt will be portrayed as fun & sexy! Wonder if they would do the same with a male school teacher. Also says marriage is dead- hardly news here.
http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/05/cameron-diaz-says-the-institution-of-marriage-is-dying/?test=faces
I am confused, and forgive my ignorance.
I thought that District Attorneys were supposed to PERSECUTE criminal cases, not defend them?
That is, typically, don't DA's - such as Mary N. Kellett get "over eager" to see somebody go to jail - isn't that their job?
...to make sure that people who commit crimes end up behind bars?
Why is the DA in this case defending the criminal?
I'm cool with speculating here. There is a near 0% chance of the police arresting an alleged rape victim before that person gives an inconsistent story. I don't see this Miranda defense going anywhere for her.
Wise-crack:
Don't you mean her constitutional rights were "raped".
Ah geeez - here we go again.
Man, when will Heidi Jones stop getting raped all the time...
Druk, I think you are correct. I need to try to track down those court filings to read what is really going on here. My guess is that it's as simple as you say.
ScareCrow, the DA wants to prosecute -- the defense has made a motion to have the evidence excluded.
When I was in law school, Maranda warnings were only required before questioning after an arrest was made.
It's possible that's been expanded since but I doubt it to cases like this.
Police question "persons of interest" without giving Maranda warnings all the time, and the evidence can be and is used in court.
The bigger "gotcha" to this seems to be the fact that the police were interviewing her based on a claim SHE initiated. There've been plenty of cases (in my memory usually involving folks on drugs) where somebody calls the police, the police ask them clarifying questions about what happened, the folks end up saying something incriminating and before you know it they're in jail/doing time.
If she were a suspect at the time for a different case perhaps the case would be different but unless I'm missing something this is fairly (I say fairly because her lawyer'll make some hoopla about it) easy for the prosecution to deal with.
If Ms. Jones' Constitutional rights were violated (and I am not saying they were), and if there is no good case without self-incriminating statements unlawfully obtained, then the case must be dismissed.
***
In other words, unlike most feminists, we have moral values that apply even in situations that are inconvenient for us.
Miranda is a warning, not a right, only read when you are arrested.
How many men got tricked by the police to say something incriminating to a false rape accusation? Then 30 years later, they are free.
Post a Comment