Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Silence Can Be Used Against Suspects
AP ^ | Aug 15, 2014 | PAUL ELIAS

Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar

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

Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.

Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: california; richardtom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 301-306 next last
To: P-Marlowe

To make it official.


101 posted on 08/15/2014 7:56:16 PM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Do you think Miranda was a good decision? Is Earl Warren one of your constitutional heroes?


102 posted on 08/15/2014 7:59:44 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Sure that wasn’t “thunderous” silence, or “guilty” silence, or “prevaricating” silence that was miraculously transformed into undeniable stone cold evidence. Is there a legal guide that defines silence evidence that the defendant can refer to?


103 posted on 08/15/2014 8:00:33 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (The IRS, HHS, EPA, etc. would have saved the E-mails if they thought the court orders were serious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“Do you think Miranda was a good decision?”

Evidently, it doesn’t matter anymore.


104 posted on 08/15/2014 8:05:19 PM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet; xzins
Is there a legal guide that defines silence evidence that the defendant can refer to?

This case is a good one.

Where there is no issue as to whether or not the defendant killed the victim (there is no issue in this case) and where the only issue is the defendant's state of mind (which in this case was whether or not the defendant had a callous disregard for human life) then cold silence in the face of a dying child or a screaming mother can be interpreted by a jury that the defendant really didn't give a damn about the consequences of his actions and had no regard for anyone other than himself.

I think the facts of this case bear out that the defendant didn't really give a damn about whether or not he killed a child. His only concern was for himself. Just as it was when he was driving drunk and speeding.

105 posted on 08/15/2014 8:13:09 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Hell, they just might set up checkpoints at the border and a Berlin Wall, and ignore the ruling altogether.

I'm fine with that. Remember, Kali, on a Berlin Wall, the gun towers face INWARD! As long as they remember that, I'm cool It'll keep the commies from getting out and staining the good part of the country.

106 posted on 08/15/2014 8:13:25 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
Evidently, it doesn’t matter anymore

I'll accept that as a "YES".

107 posted on 08/15/2014 8:19:11 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Yikes. LOL

So you believe that someone not making a statement before they are Marandaized should be grounds for conviction? That is the premise of this article.

I don’t agree.

Seems to me I remember Robert’s class act, declaring the Obamacare fees taxes, and thus legitimate, so Obamacare could remain the law of the land.

Folks on the court don’t always get it right.

I would have to agree that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreeing with my take is unsettling.

What would you venture the reason to be?


108 posted on 08/15/2014 8:21:22 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We'll know when he's really hit bottom. They'll start referring to him as White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I would have to agree that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreeing with my take is unsettling.

Maybe you should re-evaluate your position in light of the actual wording of the fifth amendment and the intent of the framers.

If you are in agreement with those clowns, then you are obviously not thinking correctly.

109 posted on 08/15/2014 8:27:57 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Holding: When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

Whaaaaa? So you have to utter some magic incantation for silence not to be used against you? Shoot after this ruling, I'd think if you DID say you were standing on the 5th it could be used against you, because since the 5th provides protection from self-incrimination, then if you don't want to talk, then anything you had to say must then have been incriminating!

110 posted on 08/15/2014 8:28:23 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

In all honestly, when someone does something like this, the last thing the parents want to hear is the idiot slobbering all over everyone expressing remorse.

IMO, just shutting up and remaining on the sidelines is about all you can do.

The guy is already the slime-ball to beat all slime-balls.


111 posted on 08/15/2014 8:31:41 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We'll know when he's really hit bottom. They'll start referring to him as White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: tbw2
CID = Criminal Investigation Division.
112 posted on 08/15/2014 8:32:22 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Was Robert’s thinking correctly when he ruled that the Obamacare fees were taxation?

I’ll be interested if you’re rethinking your take on that one.


113 posted on 08/15/2014 8:32:40 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We'll know when he's really hit bottom. They'll start referring to him as White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax
Appeal will set him free.

This was the appeal, to the Supreme Court of California. The only possible further appeal is to SCOTUS, which agrees to hear only a tiny fraction of cases appealed to it.

114 posted on 08/15/2014 8:36:43 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Was Robert’s thinking correctly when he ruled that the Obamacare fees were taxation? I’ll be interested if you’re rethinking your take on that one.

I do not include Roberts in any argument about the Constitution. I only reference Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Roberts was in agreement with Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor on Obamacare. Kennedy was on the other side.

So when Roberts is in agreement with those clowns, then he must be numbered among the clowns. I now permanently number him among the clowns and I would move to impeach him if I were in Congress.

115 posted on 08/15/2014 8:36:49 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; TexasGator
So you believe that someone not making a statement before they are Marandaized should be grounds for conviction? That is the premise of this article.

Note that with this sort of idea as precedent — that your rights come into existence when you are told about them by an official — they could beat you until you confess and then Mirandaize you and let you have legal representation [et al].

What do they care? They already have a confession.

116 posted on 08/15/2014 8:38:05 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I would have to agree with you. Over time I think he’s going to screw us again from time to time.

The problem is impeaching these sorts and getting it through the Senate. Same problem with Obama. They’re clearly problematic, Obama even criminally IMO, but what can you do.

He has members of a terrorist organization as his advisers.

Well, off topic...

I don’t necessarily object to looking at this again.


117 posted on 08/15/2014 8:39:31 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We'll know when he's really hit bottom. They'll start referring to him as White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
In all honestly, when someone does something like this, the last thing the parents want to hear is the idiot slobbering all over everyone expressing remorse.

But it is something the jury might want to consider. When the only issue is the defendant's state of mind at the time of the accident, a callous silence in the face of the suffering you have caused is evidence that you had a callous disregard for life, especially if you were drunk and speeding at the time.

To deny the jury access to that information when deciding the case is to deny the parents the justice they deserve.

If you were the judge, would you have kept the undisputed FACT that the defendant did not utter a single word after killing an 8 year old from the jury?

118 posted on 08/15/2014 8:40:51 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I know that you are agreeing with me, but I do see a valid argument against mine. If it only goes to frame of mind and not guilt, it could be a decent argument.

It still verges on self-incrimination. I’ll take another look.


119 posted on 08/15/2014 8:41:51 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We'll know when he's really hit bottom. They'll start referring to him as White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
California has gone full-on Communist. Saw California's conversion to a Stalinist State coming for two decades.

It was the three most far-left judges on the California Supreme Court who dissented. The decision was written by the closest thing that court has to a conservative.

120 posted on 08/15/2014 8:44:59 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 301-306 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson