Fogbow

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:28 am

Peter Navarro (representing self) is mulling motion to suppress his own statements based on theory that FBI agent delivered Miranda warnings to Navarro "in a casual and improvisational manner, perhaps designed to lull the defendant into complaceny."

Kendra wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:23 pm https:// twitter.com/rparloff/status/1536742364387192837

Peter Navarro (representing self) is mulling motion to suppress his own statements based on theory that FBI agent delivered Miranda warnings to Navarro "in a casual and improvisational manner, perhaps designed to lull the defendant into complaceny."

Perhaps Trump's parking garage lawyer would take his case?

Notably, the Miranda rights need not be read in any particular order, and they need not precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed (California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)).

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:48 pm I doubt Navarro will ever be in the position of having silence used against him!

"The Defendant bases his request for a continuance, in part, on his accusations that the Government is attempting to deprive him of counsel — for example, by allegedly denying him a call to counsel upon his arrest and filing motions in the normal course of proceeding with this case," the court papers say. “The Defendant’s claims are false.”

The Justice Department also released a copy of an FBI agent’s report on Thursday, which detailed Navarro’s arrest at Reagan National Airport and describes how agents accommodated him by giving him chocolates, allowing him time to comfort a travel companion at the airport and repeatedly adjusting his handcuffs by loosening them and giving more space between his wrists after he complained.

It said Navarro was advised of his rights and was told the agents didn’t want to interview him. He asked to make a phone call, the report said, and an agent told him they would contact his attorney if he gave them the name of the lawyer.

The report says Navarro responded, “I’m supposed to be on live television tonight. I’d like to call the producer and tell him I’m not going to be there. Can I have my phone?” The agent then told him that they would quickly make arrangements for a call with his lawyer, if he provided the attorney’s name.

Kendra wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:46 pm Anyone who remembers watching Dragnet back in the days knows what the Miranda thing is. Navarro's older than me, so he should too.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:52 pm Navarro's argument is apparently that they told him his rights without explicitly reading them from a card, which Navarro considers as possibly a violation of the fourth amendment.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the requirement is to advise the party of their rights, not to explicitly read them off a card. But what do I know?

Notably, the Miranda rights need not be read in any particular order, and they need not precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed (California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)).

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:05 pmAlso, of note, is that Navarro was told that the agents did NOT want to interview him. So anything he said was inflicted upon them as word vomit anyway.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:49 pm Navarro is onto a glimmer of a possible argument: that the officers' "improvisational" method ("allegedly") failed to fully inform him of his rights. It is the duty of law enforcement to adequately explain all the rights about to be waived; it doesn't matter if Navarro already knew his rights. A talismanic recitation (i.e., reading off the card) isn't necessary, but it is the better practice (to avoid arguments like this).

And, of course, Miranda protects the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:05 pm Also, of note, is that Navarro was told that the agents did NOT want to interview him. So anything he said was inflicted upon them as word vomit anyway.

That's always an interesting one: Anyone can freely incriminate themselves; Miranda kicks in only in response to questions (or other actions) by law enforcement (or its agents) ("reasonably") designed to elicit an incriminating response.

johnpcapitalist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:13 pm While there may be a genuine dispute here, it sounds like Navarro may be veering into SovCit territory.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:43 pm

johnpcapitalist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:13 pm While there may be a genuine dispute here, it sounds like Navarro may be veering into SovCit territory.

Not so much sovcit: It is a typical argument from people unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. Countless defendants have argued, "the cops didn't read me my rights!", as if that was a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Despite his education and experience, Navarro may be genuinely ignorant. Or he may be playing on others' ignorance, to pry open their wallets.