Paul Mirengoff does not know what he’s talking about and admits so.
I have never practiced criminal law (except briefly at the international level) and have not studied it since 1974. Thus, like most Americans, much of what I think I know about criminal procedure comes from watching television and movies.
That doesn’t stop him from spouting nonsense, like “[m]y viewing experience does not include any instances in which a judge read a criminal defendant his or her Miranda warning in the middle of police interrogation. Thus, I was shocked to learn that this happened in the case of the surviving Tsarnaev terrorist.”
Problem is: Tsarnaev was not given his Miranda warnings. Judges don’t give Miranda warnings because Miranda is a case that deals with the in-custody interrogation of individuals by police.
Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the judge inform the defendant of (A) the complaint against the defendant, and any affidavit filed with it, (B) the defendant’s right to retain counsel or to request that counsel be appointed if the defendant cannot obtain counsel, (C) the circumstances, if any, under which the defendant may secure pretrial release, (D) any right to a preliminary hearing, and (E) the defendant’s right not to make a statement, and that any statement made may be used against the defendant.