Kids need parents' help with Miranda

Young had to hear testimony from each MTA detective who read Miranda rights to one of the juveniles. Sometimes this involved having the taped interview played back in court, with parts redacted where the interviewee apparently implicated others. (Note: I heard five of the six statements played in court; all of the students said that Kreager either spit on one girl or threw the first punch, which started the fight.) After the Miranda rights were explained, all six of the juveniles waived their right to remain silent or have a lawyer. None had a parent present during questioning.

There were times when Young, an erudite, pleasant and patient man, had a look on his face that seemed to say he really didn't need all this.

And all this could have been avoided. Why leave it to the police to determine whether or not a juvenile understands his or her Miranda rights? Couldn't the state legislature pass a law requiring that a parent be present when a juvenile suspect is read his or her Miranda rights?

On one of the taped statements, a detective asked a girl if the fight with Kreager and Ennis was justified. The girl didn't know what the word justified meant. The same detective had to explain to another girl what her initials were, and she had trouble understanding the statement "I agree to answer questions, and I do not want an attorney at this time." Can juveniles who can't understand these simple words, phrases and sentences intelligently waive their Miranda rights?

There is no simple yes-or-no answer. For the record, Young ruled all but one of the respondents' statements admissible. But the state legislature could have helped him out a little bit by passing a law that doesn't leave the matter up for debate. Just require a parent to be there and maybe these motions never come up.

But come up they did, perhaps to torment Young for 12 days. But I'm sure he sees a bright side: those motions could have been made for nine respondents instead of six.

[e-mail]