Everyone knows from the many cop shows on TV that once a person is arrested and before they can be questioned by police they must be read their Miranda rights. Miranda refers to the 1966 case Arizona v. Miranda where the U.S. Supreme Court decided that statements may not be used against a Defendant if he is not first informed of the right against self incrimination under the 5th Amendment. Those rights are specifically set out as the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. On June 1, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decided to permit statements of a Defendant to be admitted as evidence even though the Defendant never agreed to waive his rights under Miranda.

In the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, Mr. Thompkins was in police custody and being questioned about the death of an individual. The Police read him his Miranda rights but Mr. Thompkins never indicated whether he wanted to speak with them or if he was invoking his right to remain silent. Instead, he said largely nothing and the police asked him questions for three hours to which he did not respond until the very end of the interrogation when the officer asked: “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” To which the Defendant replied, “Yes.” That statement was used to convict him of murder. Notably, Mr. Thompkins declined to sign a form acknowledging that he understood his Miranda rights as well as never indicating whether he was choosing to speak to police. The court found that unless the Defendant explicitly says he is declining to speak with police, any confession may be used against him. Previously, it was thought that a waiver of one’s right had to be made clear by the Defendant. This decision pitted the liberal wing of the Supreme Court against the conservative wing in a 5-4 decision.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported, November 4th, that state court officials have recommended Los Angeles and San Diego counties as possible sites for the murder trial of former Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police Officer Johannes Mehserle.

Mehserle resigned as a police officer in Oakland, California, after shooting 22-year-old Oscar Grant, who was unarmed on January 1, 2009 at a train station. Mehserle has said through his attorneys that he intended to use his Taser to subdue Grant, but mistakenly fired his pistol instead.

The location of the trial is extremely important in the potential outcome of this case. There is likelihood for jurors to be affected by protestors who view the case as part of a pattern of police abuse against people of color– Mehserle is white and Grant was black.

Potential jurors are randomly selected from a fair cross-section of one’s community; typically from voter registration or drivers’ license lists. Los Angeles and San Diego counties both have large jury pools that differ in certain respects. According to a 2008 survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, 53 percent of Los Angeles County residents are white and 9 percent are black. In San Diego, 73 percent are white and 5 percent are black. Hence, the location of this trial may determine the perspective of any potential juror and therefore effect the outcome of the case.

Grant’s family would prefer the trial take place in Los Angeles, a county whose diversity more closely mirrors the Bay Area. Whereas, the defense wants the case to take place in San Diego because it is known to be law enforcement friendly, which could benefit them. The judge has set a date for November 19 for both sides to argue their case. A decision is expected shortly after.

Southwestern University law professor, Robert Pugsley, states: “Where you try the case, and who you have on the jury, has everything to do with the outcome.” Had the OJ Simpson case been filed in Santa Monica rather than Downtown Los Angeles, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American. With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the prosecution made. The exact same case–in Santa Monica– could have gotten Simpson a conviction. Final jury for the OJ Simpson trial had 10 women and 2 men, of which there were 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Native American, half-white, and 1 white female. Jury selection may be the most important part of a criminal trial.

Associated Press News Video