Posted on 06/02/2010 3:16:31 PM PDT by davidosborne
excerpt..
..the court's conservative majority, the justices ruled 5-4 that unless a suspect explicitly invokes his right not to talk — that is, unless he talks to the police — he's not entitled to remain silent, and any statement he makes can be used against him in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2526280/posts
You may get ZOTted again since there are at least three other threads on this story
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2526280/posts
I originally posted the above thread when I got the news without a source link. There are several commentarys out there on the web about this USSC decision, but I have yet to read the actual text of the decision. When I posted the first link I was “blackberry” limited. I assume several freepers have done their homework and have something to say this decision.
more to follow..
This is a HUGE and potentially far reaching decision.. I think it deserved to be on the BREAKING NEWS sidebar when I first posted it.. :)
I guess I am still a bit confused by this. I thought you had those rights whether or not someone has read them to you. So do the rights only exist after the point they are read? I know if I am arrested I will conduct myself as if the rights pre-exist the reading.
I learned a long time ago after watching episodes come and go in the Air Force...just keep your mouth shut and only ask to be let go. They can only hold you a limited time without charges. If they have charges...anything you say...even a joke...could be used against you...so never say anything after being arrested.
“I will only speak to my lawyer”....
That is so very hard to say
Or..
“Sólo voy a hablar con mi abogado”
And you are covered, according to the SCOTUS.
Don’t listen to the wanna-be-mods.... thanks for posting.
To me this basically means that if you don’t want your words used against you, don’t say anything. Simple, conservative principle.
Miranda rights should be on the test for citizenship.
Makes sense to me. You have a constitutional right to plead the 5th amendment. But the liberals on the Court made up the Miranda Right out of whole cloth. And God only knows how many criminals have escaped justice because of that.
Including the Panty Bomber and his associates—not even citizens.
Thanks for the post. Hadn’t seen it on FR previously.
the RIGHT does exist, but it is up to the INDIVIDUAL PERSON to “exercise” that right..
prior to this ruling the pracitce has been that if a person INVOKED their right to remain silent and I ask them an incriminating question and they answer that question than for some crazy reason I could not use that answer against them..because their “right” to remain silent was somehow violated when I asked them an incriminating question....
but what I understand NOW with this NEW ruling... I can ASK any question I want whenever I want as a Law enforcement officer and it is up to YOU whether you answer the question or not.. you don’t HAVE to answer the question, and you HAVE the right to remain silent.. .but my asking the question does NOT violate your right... this is just common sense IMHO.. it’s about time something that makes SENSE has come out of the USSC..
The article seemed pretty slanted so I guess I’ll have to go look at the ruling.
My only question is: at what point during the arrest can law enforcement presume the accused has acknowledged his Miranda rights *if* the accused never says a word?
Now how hard was that?
easy enough.. and if the suspect answers EVERY question that way than I guess the suspect has made it clear that they don’t wish to answer any questions.. but if an indiviudal wants to confess to a crime AFTER they have INVOKED their right to remain silent.. I think we should let them do so...
Think of Miranda in terms of evidence. If the police get a blood sample, or a fingerprint this is evidence. But before a confession can be presented to a jury it must pass certain tests. If a suspect is properly Mirandized, and he waives his right, and confesses, this can then be presented to the jury for their consideration. To say the least, it is extremely powerful to tell a jury that the suspect did the crime. And the reason you know he did the crime was because he told you he did it. No, the liberals do not like that at all!
I would take that as a tacit acknowledgment if he keeps his lips zipped.
I read that the old style mafia hit men would clam up immediately upon arrest. They wouldn’t talk to ANYONE, even their own attorney. And to no one’s surprise, they would sometimes get off because the evidence was not strong, and they never made an incriminating statement.
If an individual wants to CONFESS to crime they should be ALLOWED to do so.. as you well know a confession ALONE is NOT enough to convict.. for example when you have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that contradicts a CONFESSION.. the PHYSICAL evidence wins everytime... LYING and confessing to crimes you did not commit does not work most of the time..
I agree with you post totally. My example is generic and cannot cover all examples. If someone wants to confess, no one should get in the way. I also would be suspicious of a confession without corroborating evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.