Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Decision by Supreme Court Blow to Miranda Rights

Aired May 29, 2003 - 08:17   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: You have the right to remain silent -- or do you? A decision this week by the Supreme Court delivers a blow to the Miranda rights.
The case involved Oliverio Martinez, a California man who was blinded and paralyzed after being shot in the head and back during an encounter with police. While critically ill in an emergency room, Martinez was questioned without being read his rights.

Here's a part of that interrogation now captured on audiotape.

(EXCERPT FROM AUDIO CLIP IN SPANISH)

COLLINS: The high court ruled that people can be forced to talk, as long as their statements are not used to prosecute them.

Our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, is here now and objecting.

He's going to talk to us about all of this.

Does this ruling actually change the whole idea of a person or a suspect interrupting the interview and saying wait a minute, wait a minute, I don't want to talk to you anymore, I want a lawyer.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: What this case is really about is the difference between -- according to Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion -- is the difference between criminal cases and civil cases. The Miranda rule, he said in this case, applies only to criminal cases. Mr. Martinez was not criminally prosecuted as a result of this interrogation and that, according to the court, was the only time he had the right to object to these statements.

What he did was he filed a civil lawsuit against the police for torturing him and violating his Miranda rights. The court said no, Miranda doesn't apply in civil cases. The police, in effect, have no, nothing to worry about if they do this to you in a civil, you know, in a civil context. It only applies in criminal cases. And I think that's an outrageous distinction.

COLLINS: Well, was he being treated by doctors at the time or were they, were police actually saying no, no, no, leave him alone, we've got to talk to him?

TOOBIN: Well, apparently what was going on -- and all, everything about this is in some dispute -- is that he was being treated at some point and then being interrogated, treated, interrogated. But I mean as you can hear from that tape, this was a pretty ugly encounter.

COLLINS: So what about the police argument, anyway, saying that, you know, well, if this person is so gravely injured they could die and that we don't have the information that we need to pursue the case in whatever form they may need to?

TOOBIN: You know, I think that torture is simply unacceptable and if it takes torture to get something out of people, you shouldn't do it. And the police, in my view, simply have to lose that right, especially in a case here where there was nothing terribly substantial at risk. This was not a terrorism investigation. This was a relatively minor narcotics investigation that clearly should have allowed him to get treatment first and then any sort of interrogation.

And even if he's -- under any circumstances, he should be read his rights. I don't see why his medical condition has anything to do with that.

COLLINS: So what you're saying is then maybe it needs to be more of a case by case basis?

TOOBIN: No, I mean I think it should be categorical.

COLLINS: Right.

TOOBIN: I think you should not have enough -- you should not be able to torture people. I mean situations like this simply are unacceptable. And what I think is interesting, though it's never mentioned in the opinion, is the terrorism context, is, you know, after 9/11 we had a lot of discussion -- and the Supreme Court lives in the real world -- about whether it's appropriate to torture people to get information about something like a 9/11 type event.

COLLINS: Right.

TOOBIN: And, you know, my own view -- a lot of people disagree -- is no. It is simply unacceptable to torture people, one, because it's immoral, and, two, because you get unreliable information.

COLLINS: Jeffrey Toobin objecting this morning.

Thanks so much.

TOOBIN: A lot of good it does. The Supreme Court has the last word. They don't care what I think so.

COLLINS: Thanks so much, Jeffrey.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired May 29, 2003 - 08:17   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: You have the right to remain silent -- or do you? A decision this week by the Supreme Court delivers a blow to the Miranda rights.
The case involved Oliverio Martinez, a California man who was blinded and paralyzed after being shot in the head and back during an encounter with police. While critically ill in an emergency room, Martinez was questioned without being read his rights.

Here's a part of that interrogation now captured on audiotape.

(EXCERPT FROM AUDIO CLIP IN SPANISH)

COLLINS: The high court ruled that people can be forced to talk, as long as their statements are not used to prosecute them.

Our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, is here now and objecting.

He's going to talk to us about all of this.

Does this ruling actually change the whole idea of a person or a suspect interrupting the interview and saying wait a minute, wait a minute, I don't want to talk to you anymore, I want a lawyer.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: What this case is really about is the difference between -- according to Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion -- is the difference between criminal cases and civil cases. The Miranda rule, he said in this case, applies only to criminal cases. Mr. Martinez was not criminally prosecuted as a result of this interrogation and that, according to the court, was the only time he had the right to object to these statements.

What he did was he filed a civil lawsuit against the police for torturing him and violating his Miranda rights. The court said no, Miranda doesn't apply in civil cases. The police, in effect, have no, nothing to worry about if they do this to you in a civil, you know, in a civil context. It only applies in criminal cases. And I think that's an outrageous distinction.

COLLINS: Well, was he being treated by doctors at the time or were they, were police actually saying no, no, no, leave him alone, we've got to talk to him?

TOOBIN: Well, apparently what was going on -- and all, everything about this is in some dispute -- is that he was being treated at some point and then being interrogated, treated, interrogated. But I mean as you can hear from that tape, this was a pretty ugly encounter.

COLLINS: So what about the police argument, anyway, saying that, you know, well, if this person is so gravely injured they could die and that we don't have the information that we need to pursue the case in whatever form they may need to?

TOOBIN: You know, I think that torture is simply unacceptable and if it takes torture to get something out of people, you shouldn't do it. And the police, in my view, simply have to lose that right, especially in a case here where there was nothing terribly substantial at risk. This was not a terrorism investigation. This was a relatively minor narcotics investigation that clearly should have allowed him to get treatment first and then any sort of interrogation.

And even if he's -- under any circumstances, he should be read his rights. I don't see why his medical condition has anything to do with that.

COLLINS: So what you're saying is then maybe it needs to be more of a case by case basis?

TOOBIN: No, I mean I think it should be categorical.

COLLINS: Right.

TOOBIN: I think you should not have enough -- you should not be able to torture people. I mean situations like this simply are unacceptable. And what I think is interesting, though it's never mentioned in the opinion, is the terrorism context, is, you know, after 9/11 we had a lot of discussion -- and the Supreme Court lives in the real world -- about whether it's appropriate to torture people to get information about something like a 9/11 type event.

COLLINS: Right.

TOOBIN: And, you know, my own view -- a lot of people disagree -- is no. It is simply unacceptable to torture people, one, because it's immoral, and, two, because you get unreliable information.

COLLINS: Jeffrey Toobin objecting this morning.

Thanks so much.

TOOBIN: A lot of good it does. The Supreme Court has the last word. They don't care what I think so.

COLLINS: Thanks so much, Jeffrey.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com