Applied Miranda Rights

One of the precedents set under the Miranda vs. Arizona case is the fact that a criminal has the right to know he has the right to an attorney , and they have the right to remain silent until a lawyer is present. In a recent criminal case, Michael Shatzer was questioned for the first time during an investigation, but denied answering any questions until he had an attorney present. The case soon went cold, and Shatzer sat in jail for another three years. When more information on the case was found, police soon went back to question Shatzer. This time, he waived his right to remain silent, but was not told of his right to an attorney. The police said that since he had known he could have an attorney present three years ago, he did not need to be read that right once again. The first court of appeals held that the court could not use Shatzer's confession because he had not known the right to an attorney. The Supreme Court overruled this, however, by saying that Shatzer never specifically requested an attorney for the second interrogation; the Court figured that Shatzer would remember he had the right to an attorney, even if the police did not read it to him for a second time in three years. In my opinion, Shatzer could have forgotten about his right to an attorney during the three year period, because three years is quite a long time. The police should have read him all of his rights again in order to keep all fairness the same.