Violation of Miranda Rights

U.S. Attorney Robert C. Bonner (Letters, Oct. 20) believes the California Supreme Court should not have thrown out the conviction of a drug trafficker who sold two pounds of cocaine on the basis of a violation of Miranda rights.

According to Bonner, “. . . The defendant agreed to answer questions, and he waived his right to a lawyer. While he was being questioned, some “friends” of the drug pusher hired a lawyer who went to the police station and asked to see the defendant. The police did not allow the lawyer to see him, nor did they tell the defendant that a lawyer wanted to see him. . . .”

I wonder how Bonner would have felt if a member of his family or a close friend was mistakenly arrested on charges of drug trafficking, and he went to the police station to consult with the defendant, only to be denied.

Further yet, I wonder how Bonner would have reacted if he was defending his friend, and the prosecution used the case he would have upheld involving the sale of two pounds of cocaine, as precedent.

The California Supreme Court has a duty to overturn any conviction where the defendant was treated unfairly regardless of whether or not he was guilty. Dangerous precedent would be set otherwise.

The Miranda rights were established to protect the people from the adverse, intimidating atmosphere of police interrogation. The prosecution should not be afraid of the defendant being counseled. A conviction should rely on more than the testimony of the defendant.

I applaud the California Supreme Court for having the integrity to overturn a faulty conviction of an alleged drug trafficker to protect the right to counsel of every citizen in California.

Again, imagine if the tables had been turned, Mr. Bonner, and you were in the same situation. Maybe you wouldn’t be so hasty in condemning the actions of the California Supreme Court.

SUSANNA S. CHEUNG

Monterey Park