Court: Silence Can Be Used Against Suspects

[underpants]

Probably already posted but


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-silence-suspects-25000247


SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.


Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.

Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect's refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

"It's a very dangerous ruling," Zilversmit said. "If you say anything to the police, that can be used against you. Now, if you don't say anything before you are warned of your rights, that too can be used against you."

The state Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling said Tom needed to explicitly assert his right to remain silent — before he was read his Miranda rights — for the silence to be inadmissible in court.

[phantom power]

1. wtf? the miranda rights are for in case you don't already know them.

They aren't for giving goddamned permission.

Our entire country has lost its fucking mind.

[underpants]

5. You Don’t Have the Right to Remain Silent

From a SCOTUS ruling last year. Link in reply#3

I completely agree with you phantom

From the Slate article:
Justice Samuel Alito blithely responded that Salinas was “free to leave” and did not assert his right to remain silent. He was silent. But somehow, without a lawyer, and without being told his rights, he should have affirmatively “invoked” his right to not answer questions. Two other justices signed on to Alito’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia joined the judgment, but for a different reason; they think Salinas had no rights at all to invoke before his arrest (they also object to Miranda itself).

[PoutrageFatigue]

2. That's complete bullshit...

The fucking Miranda warning says, in it's very first words "You have the RIGHT to remain silent"....If you remain silent from the beginning of the interview/interrogation doesn't logic dictate that the RIGHT to remain silent has been invoked?

Surely this stupid, unconstitutional ruling is being challenged somewhere, right? RIGHT????

[underpants]

3. Saw this in FB had the same reaction as you...but SCOTUS ruled same way last year

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html

Slightly different story - this guy was not charged only being questioned

[eShirl]

10. constitutional rights exist by default

it wasn't designed to be like a D&D wizard spell

"I cast Right to Remain Silent on myself!"
"Sorry, not quick enough."

[onethatcares]

4. we are

nummer one, we are nummer one.

that pesky piece of paper don't mean shit anymore.

murica, home of the atlanta braves.

[Johonny]

6. How do you assert your right to remain silent other than being silent?

So modern America that you have to speak about your desire to assert your right to remain silent in order to have the right to remain silent. It is like the Supreme Court needs to look up the definition of the word silent.

[underpants]

7. BEFORE - that was the part that killed me

You are right. You have to speak to establish silence?

BEFORE - if the cop says "You..." and starts Miranda you are out of luck. You can talk (never helps) or just be silent which now can be used as an admission of guilt.

Link above - SCOTUS (guess which ones) ruled the same way last year.

Absurdity reigns.

[GeorgeGist]

8. Freedumb™ Fries

gullible minds.

[woo me with science]

9. Just a goddamn piece of paper.

Fascists.

K&R

[woo me with science]

11. kick