I genuinely don’t understand what a technicality is, and I really want to know.
In: 1
Non lawyers like to use phrases like “got off on a technicality”. Us actual lawyers prefer to use the term “laws” and “rights”. As in “his conviction was overturned because his rights were violated, which broke the law”.
I’ll give an example. A man is accused of murder. He’s arrested, placed in interrogation, and questioned about his involvement. During questioning he admits to the murder, and draws the police a map of where he hid the body. Police use the map to find the body, along with ample forensic evidence proving *conclusively* that the suspect is the murder.
Ooooone tiny problem. And that problem is *Miranda v. Arizona* the Supreme Court case that codified “Miranda rights”. Which are, very simply, that the police *must* inform a suspect of their rights to an attorney, and that they are not in any way obligated to answer police questions, and may remain silent, at any time, and their remaining silent can not ever be used against them in court.
So if the police started questioning the suspect without informing the suspect of his rights per *Miranda* the police violated that suspect’s constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th amendments.
And because the suspect was never informed of that before he was questioned then *everything* he said in that questioning, and in addition *every other piece of evidence obtained as a result of that questioning, INCLUDING THE BODY* is what we call “fruit of the poisonous tree”. The questioning was illegal, so *anything and everything* that came out of that questioning can not be used.
Some would say “oh that’s just a technicality, he’s clearly a murderer and so he should be in prison”. We attorneys call that “violation of civil liberties, so now he gets to go free, do better next time”
Latest Answers