For instance, having covered the courts as a reporter for years, I was always bothered by the Miranda Warning. American citizens may not know the words to the Star-Spangled Banner or the Pledge of Allegiance, but everyone knows the words to the Miranda Warning: "You have the right to remain silent; if you choose not to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to an attorney; if you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you."
The thing that has always bugged me about that is the line: "Anything you say can AND WILL be used against you in a court of law." Now, you know this isn't true. There are a lot of things defendants say that are never used against them in court. So why do the arresting officers have to try this feeble bluff?
I mean, if I'm arrested and I blurt out "I think Einstein was wrong. E does not equal MC squared. E equals two chipmunks packing their cheeks with nuts for the winter." Assuming this was just some sort of traffic case and not one involving my sanity, that statement would never be used against me in court.
So why do they say anything you say "can and will" be used against you? I think if you say something, no matter how nonsensical, and they DON'T use it against you, the government should lose its case. Period. ("Your honor, I move for a mistrial. My client clearly stated in his interrogation that he thought Wayne Newton was overrated as a singer and that he had never met anyone who had ever actually bought a Wayne Newton record. This was NEVER used against him in court. Therefore, charges that he shot his neighbor's dog should be dropped.")
THE other thing that has always bugged me is that when a jury returns a verdict, it is handed to the judge, who then hands it back to a clerk who reads it. The judge has the verdict in his damn hands, why doesn't he just read the thing himself? Those few moments of suspense are cruel and unusual punishment to the defendant, not to mention court observers. At the very least, the judge should roll his eyes and emit a slight chuckle after reading the verdict. Or he should yell to the jury: "Are you all insane?!" before he calmly hands the verdict to the clerk.
But I think the judges kind of get off on that 10 seconds of knowing something that only 12 other people in the world know. It's a weird judicial power trip.
Finally, the thing that is really beginning to bug me is when everyone in the world knows that a defendant is guilty but we all have to feign amnesia because the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty."
Heidi Fleiss has talked openly about being the Hollywood Madam. She's even written a book disclosing how she sent prostitutes to famous people like actor Charlie Sheen. But now, since her conviction on pandering was overturned, we are all supposed to act like she isn't a prostitute and pimp pending her retrial.
The truth is, she's an admitted prostitute and pimp. She is "innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW," not in the court of public opinion. We are not involved in the case. We can believe any old thing we want. And I say she's guilty. And Sheen is guilty of prostitution because he admits he used Fleiss's services. One of the weirdest parts of the system is that creeps like him get to walk while Fleiss has to go to trial and sit there while the judge smugly reads the verdict form like a poker player holding four aces.
