Agreed. But the persons publishing the photos in your example were "journalists," not state actors required to prove the guilt of the person photograph beyond a reasonable doubt.

I haven't done any research into the question, but it seems to me likely that any defense lawyer worth his salt would argue that the publication of these photos by the sheriff deprives that accused of his right to a fair and impartial jury.

I do not believe so. What is the difference between a line up for possibly identify the perp? What is the differencedif fingerprints are taken and run in the computer? What is the difference in using a mugshot book? We have to remember the person has been arrested. At that point the Miranda Warning issued. Everything else is fair game. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

Above and beyond that....posting pics looks ok to me. :03:

Not to be a bore, but all of the things that you mentioned - appearing in line-ups and mug books, taking fingerprints, reading Miranda, etc. - are police functions having nothing to do with the Sixth Amendment right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury (at least in those instances where the penalty exceeds six months in the slammer). I can't imagine that any juror who witnessed Joe Blow's line up or fingerprinting, or any other aspect of Mr. Blow's arrest would be be considered "impartial" when it came to seating a jury to determine whether Mr. Blow is guilty as charged. But that's essentially what the Sheriff's done here: tainted the jury pool with widespread dissemination of the mugs shots of the accused. If the NY Times does it, the defense asks for a change in venue. But when the sheriff does it? Well, let's just hope that some predatory dirt bag isn't released to roam the streets because Sheriff Bonehead thought he'd have some fun with the internet.

Well not really. The Miranda warning says nothing about entrapment or falsifying evidence either but that doesn't make them "fair game".

Where did entrapment and falsifying evidence come into play? The Miranda warning is cut and dry. Shut up if you like. If you talk we can use the information in a court of law. You can hire a ambulance chaser if you like. If your broke arse can not afford one the state will gladly appoint one for them. :hmmm: Fingerprints and pictures to follow. See ya on the net!

You said all else is "fair game". Where in the Miranda warning does it state that the police can smear your picture and name all around town?

Again I have no problem naming and shaming a convicted person but when the cops do it to suspects it crosses the line IMO. Flatsixes' comment about poisoning the jury pool is well noted.

Where does it say it can't? You are under arrest. Rights of the detainee are few.

This is why trials take a year or two before being scheduled. Jury selection process is used. The jury is hand picked by the legal entities involved. Questions are asked of each potential juror. If volatile enough the case is tried in another state.

The accused has the same rights as anyone else.

The chances of which are increased when the Sheriffs department poisons the potential jury pool beforehand.

Citation please. Most trials around here are held within a couple of months of an arrest.

I don't start arguing on whether this is legal or not as I don't know Arizona laws. I say just this.

I understood from info given in article that Mr. Tough Sheriff has put mugshots of everyone they have arrested, suspected or court have found guilty freely available. Okay. Fine. That's not problem if you are found guilty and convicted but what if you are found not guilty? Police makes errors and sometimes new evidence surfaces.

Problem here is that unlike being suspected on or convicted on crime likely exceeds news treshold. Finding someone not guilty usually does not sell in media... So how are you going to get rid of idea that you are suspect or criminal? That people connect your face to robberies or violence crimes for example? Is Mr. Tough Sheriff's office going to buy frontpage advertisement declaring they were wrong and suspect was actually not guilty? I doubt.

Again, not trying to be a PITA, but the accused's right to remain silent doesn't permit the arrestee to refuse to have his finger prints or mug shot taken by the police. So I'm not sure how we got Miranda involved in all of this.

This is a good point given that Scumbag Sheriff has made a circus sideshow out of "law enforcement as entertainment." There's no good reason to do what he's doing because not everyone the police arrests is guilty. I'm seeing a lot of the childish idea that "oh well gee the police would never arrest someone who wasn't guilty."

Saying it's the same thing as looking up mugshots because they're public record is a false analogy. Your home telephone number, address, and members of your household can all be found through public records. It doesn't mean it's a good idea to post them on a website for entertainment.

The accused is restrained. His Miranda Rights read. That about ends the list of his rights.

The chances to poison the jury are mininmal. Really, I have guys I work with that went for jury selection. Unless it is a high profile case no one much cares or has seen pictures of the accused. These very high profile case get moved to other states.

Try living in Baltimore MD were the crime rate is a wee bit higher than your neck of the woods. Baltimore is the revolving door of justice and overburden with cases. It can take a year or so for a case of any substance to arrive to trial.

This is how Baltimore handles backlogs...

Quote:

<H1>Prosecutor acts to ease court backlog

</H1>

We'll have to agree to disagree AVG.

Yes sir! :salute: