Court of Appeals quotes David Simon in opinion
There are college classes devoted to The Wire, using the fictional HBO series to explore the impact of drugs, crime, schools and urban renewal crumbling cities. David Simon, a former Sun cop reporter, has won accolades for the vivid, raw series and for his books. Recently, he got a mention from the U.S. Attorney General.
Now, the Maryland Court of Appeals has weighed in (read decision here), quoting from his book recounting a year with the Baltimore Police Department's homicide unit, in an opinion on a Miranda case. They use cite a passage from "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" to explore "street-cred."
At issue was whether it was legitimate for the prosecutor in a murder trial to question the defendant on his desire to remain silent, a fundamental right of anyone under arrest. Typically, prosecutors are not allowed to explore such issues in front of the jury, because his silence cannot be used to impune guilt.
But in this case, the trial judge in Cecil County allowed the prosecutor to raise the question because the defendant at first told police he would cooperate, and then later recanted. The appellate judges overturned the conviction.
At the opening of the decision, the judges quote from Simon's book, citing a passage that recounts how Miranda is viewed on the Baltimore's mean streets:
David Simon, in his journalistic work, “Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets,” translates into “street-cred”1 rhetoric the now-well-known Miranda2 rights/protections:
“You have the absolute right to remain silent.” . . . . Criminals always have the right to remain silent. At least once in your . . . life, you spent an hour in front of a television set, listening to this book-’em-Danno routine. You think Joe Friday was lying to you? You think Kojak was making this . .. up? No way, bunk, we’re talking sacred freedoms here, notably your Fifth . . . Amendment protection against selfincrimination, and hey, it was good enough for Ollie North, so who are you to go incriminating yourself at the first opportunity? Get it straight: A police detective, a man who gets paid government money to put you in prison, is explaining your absolute right to shut up before you say something stupid.
“Anything you say or write may be used against you in a court of law.”
Yo, bunky, wake . . . up. You’re now being told that talking to a police detective in an interrogation room can only hurt you. If it could help you, they would probably be pretty quick to say that, wouldn’t they? They’d stand up and say you have the right not to worry because what you say or write in this . . . cubicle is gonna be used to your benefit in a court of law. No, your best bet is to shut up. Shut up now. “You have the right to talk to a lawyer at any time – before any questioning, before answering any questions, or during any questions.”
Talk about helpful. Now the man who wants to arrest you for violating the peace and dignity of the state is saying you can talk to a trained professional, an attorney who has read the relevant portions of the Maryland Annotated Code . . . . Take whatever help you can get.
Categories: Courts and the justice system
Comments
David Simon is an author of fiction. He doesn't not represent anybody, nor is he a legitimate authority on anything other than his own books, least of all what goes on in
"the mean streets of Baltimore". Cecil County judges are so removed from reality they are now quoting fiction authors.
Posted by: Cham | June 21, 2011 9:50 AM
Peter Hermann: Cham, the book from which the Maryland Court of Appeals quoted -- "Homicide: Life on the Killing Streets," is not a work of fiction. It was based on a year that David Simon spent with the homicide unit. It is a true account.
Posted by: Peter Hermann | June 21, 2011 10:02 AM
“Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets” is non-fiction. If someone were to write an essay on your poor grammer, Cham, that would also be non-fiction.
Posted by: Sham | June 21, 2011 10:42 AM
I suppose we should just be glad that someone in Cecil County can read.
Posted by: Able Baker | June 21, 2011 10:50 AM
Good decision. To boil it down for those who don't like to read court opinions:
Defendant testified that he intended to turn himself into police when the police caught him first. This may or may not have been true, although there was some reason to believe this may have been true.
Prosecutor at trial said that this thing about intending to turn himself in was shown to be a lie because he invoked right to silence after being arrested and read his rights. Trial judge allowed the silence (not normally evidence) to be admitted on this theory that it showed Defendant was lying about his intention to turn himself in because if he intended to turn himself in then he would have immediately spoken to police without a lawyer despite the Miranda warning..
In the linked decision, the appellate Court said that the trial court was wrong because intending to turn yourself in is not the sme thing as intending to talk to police without a lawyer. In other words it is quite possible to turn yourself into police in order to get that lawyer and handle your defense as the lawyer sees fit. This means that the silence is not inconsistent with (that is, does not "impeach") the allegation that Defendant intended to turn himself in. Because there is no impeachment, the general rule is followed, which means the silence is not admitted as evidence.
The Simon quote was basically set forth to show that even if Defendant had intended to talk to police without a lawyer before he was arrested, changing his intentions after being read Miranda would still not tend to show that Defendant had not intended to talk to police without a lawyer before the arrest. As much as I like to see Simon's plainspeak quoted in a court opinion, I think it is a bit misplaced here because Defendant never said that he intended to talk to police at all, but merely that he intended to turn himself in and see what happened. As such, the Miranda warnings are irrelevant. It is quite plausible to intend to turn yourself in and to intend to remain silent -- and, if this is true, it is a valid way of co-operating with police.
Posted by: Buddy Hinton | June 22, 2011 6:52 AM