The 6th Amendment takes a hit from SCOTUS in police interrogation case argued by Obama Admin. And troubling Sotomayor ruling

[Related: Sixth Amendment In Crisis: Right To Competent Counsel At Risk and False confessions: Even judges are biased by camera perspective]

Justices Ease Rules on Questioning

By DAVID STOUT
Published: May 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present.

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding.

That 1986 ruling has not only proved “unworkable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its “marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs” in that some guilty defendants go free. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 1986 decision, said that contrary to the majority’s assertion, that decision protected “a fundamental right that the court now dishonors.”

[...]

And a link to an article elaborating on Justice Stevens reacting strongly as he read his dissent from the bench

From the link

At The National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle observed, "The timing and contrast were striking: As President Barack Obama introduced Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the nation as his U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Justice Antonin Scalia, sitting on the high court bench, read parts of a 5-4 decision overruling a 23-year-old precedent on the right to counsel."

"It was business as usual for the justices Tuesday but also a reminder of the importance of one vote on a Court still closely divided in key areas of the law," Coyle noted.

I'm not so certain of the implication that Sotomayor would dissent as Souter did, as pointed out in the case of Jocks v. Tavernier by Emily Bazelon in Slate

[...]

Sotomayor has been a good emissary for herself, based on the evidence I've gathered from her clerks and other chambers about how she has worked with Republican appointees on her court. What's remarkable isn't just her persuasive abilities, though. It's where those powers sometimes take her. In one case, Sotomayor talked a Republican-appointed judge around to a result that is all about taking the police at their word—even though the disturbing, even wrenching circumstances surrounding the arrest at the heart of the case might point exactly in the opposite direction. Liberals, be careful what you wish for.

The case is Jocks v. Tavernier, argued in 2001 and decided in 2003. That long gap is the only external clue that the judges who decided Jocks fractured in any way. But they did.

[...]

Click the link and read the troubling circumstances of the case

Not saying that Police don't have a tough enough job already, but cutting corners leads to the wrong people being behind bars. Click the links