If Knox’s three statements given the night of November 5th, 2007, were given in a police station in the USA today, its clear from a recent supreme court ruling that all three of those statements would be admissible in a US court of law.
From the recent US Supreme court rulings, USA police don’t need to inform a witness of the right to a lawyer during an interrogation, only an arrest. USA Police also don’t need to stop an interrogation until the person being interrogated explicitly claims the right to silence.
This pretty much means that Knox’s interrogation between 10pm on the 5th nov and 6 am on the 6th nov would all be fully admissible in an american court of law.
Amanda was at the station voluntarily. The written statement, the 3rd statement she gave that evening, was given voluntarily. If her interrogation were to happen in the USA today, unless she explicitly invokes the right to silence, USA police are now able to continue an interrogation, continue with badgering questioning, etc. And unless she specifically asks to have a lawyer present, USA police woud have been under no obligation to inform her of that right during her interrogation; only when she was arrested, which is exactly how it happened in italy.
“Supreme Court Miranda Ruling: Suspects Must Explicitly Tell Police They Want To Remain Silent”
Selected quotes from the article:
“Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn’t have to has waived his right to remain silent.”
“A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But Tuesday’s majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.”
“This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor. “It’s a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show,” Friedman said.”
“”Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police,” Kennedy said. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
“Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect’s request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody – the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer – and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.”
“In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police,” Kennedy said. “Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins’ right to remain silent before interrogating him.”
Sotomayor called that reasoning “a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation.”