... an inquisitive new justice... displayed no reticence.... she asked as many questions and made as many comments as... was far more active Monday than in her first hearing as a justice...was part of an animated bench... Sotomayor's active questioning...I guess it can't be helped. Everyone's hungry for something about the new Justice.
The case — Maryland v. Shatzer —was about when police may question of a person who has asked for a lawyer. The basic rule is that the police must stop asking questions until the lawyer is brought in. But the problem here is whether there's ever an end to the proscription against more questions. What if years have passed? What if there is new evidence and a new investigation?
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. posed this hypothetical: What if someone was arrested for joy riding in Maryland, invoked his Fifth Amendment protection, and was never convicted? Could police in Montana question him as a murder suspect in Montana 10 years later?So Alito asked a great question and Sotomayor repeated it.
When Davis said no, Alito replied: "And you don't think that's a ridiculous application of the rule?"
When Alito raised the hypothetical ante to a crime committed 40 years later, Sotomayor joined in.
"He is arrested for joy riding, he is let go, and you are saying that for 20, 40 years he is now immunized from being re-approached by the police?" Sotomayor asked.
Can we infer, then, that she didn't ask any interesting questions?
IN THE COMMENTS: Scott said:
Can we infer, then, that she is a parrot?MadisonMan said:
Can we infer, then, that she is a parrot?