Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
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 ...
silence will be held against you?
then just babble about the weather or whatever comes to mind that has no bearing on the case
5th Amendment?
I may not like the guy, but the court seems to have lost it’s collective mind on this one.
“You have the right to remain silent!”
Didn’t these fools ever watch Dragnet?
meanwhile, as any attorney would tell you... never speak to the cops without an attorney present
which, of course, they would say implies guilt and not prudent judgement
guess they don’t need evidence to prove your guilt... just a feeling that you’re probably guilty
Amendments? Blasphemy!
you must be some rabid extremist tea party guy!
From the Excerpt: “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.”
WOW! I’ve been told since I could drive....well even before I could drive I’d heard if involved in an accident one should always keep one’s mouth shut, present the driver’s license upon request, and only answer the questions asked of oneself, immediately notify the insurance company. THAT is all.
So the silence one is supposed to maintain to keep from admitting guilt is now guilt!?
This is a very unsettled area of the law; the California Supreme Court split 4-3 on the issue, and it might well wind up at SCOTUS.
“This is a very unsettled area of the law; the California Supreme Court split 4-3 on the issue, and it might well wind up at SCOTUS.”
WOW! is all I can say. It had better end up at SCOTUS, because this isn’t right. Goes against all the traditional shut your mouth advice from way back.
This WILL be overturned.
The fifth amendment was designed to prevent the government from forcing you to testify in a trial in which you are the accused. I think is is perfectly legitimate for the government to use evidence of your demeanor following a crime including your failure to ask about the condition of a child that was critically injured in a crash in which you were involved.
Are we supposed to ignore such relevant evidence just because it might incriminate him? No, in this case his silence was as good as a confession. Sometimes that’s just how it turns out.
I have been thrown off juries because they asked if I could ignore the fact that a defendant didn’t take the stand. I replied that it is something I would have to take into account.
“Thank you Mr. Marlowe. You are excused.”
The magic moment of miranda? Your rights don’t count until we tell you about them?
Don't bet on it. His silence in the situation was relevant evidence independent of any statement of incrimination. It is one thing to button your lip, but it is entirely another thing to act indifferent to people who are dead or dying in a car wreck in which you were involved.
That was the issue. And that is why it is a correct ruling.
So basically in CA...
You have the right to remain silent and have it used against you. Anything you say or don’t say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning, which will be sued against you because only a guilty person needs a attorney. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
Can someone please tell me the day when the Miranda case became a cause celeb to constitutional Conservatives?
I have always believed that if you are too stupid to know your rights then you shouldn’t have to have some government flunky explain them to you before you shoot your mouth off about a crime you have just committed.
Miranda was a really stupid decision. But everyone here seems to treat it like the holy grail of conservative constitutional principles.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with you here. That Mr. Tom did not ask about the people in the other vehicle is a fact. The prosecutors ASSUMED that this fact somehow demonstrated Tom’s guilt, when it did no such thing. Someone who can’t distinguish between evidence and assumption, or who thinks that silence is “as good as a confession”, should be thrown off juries.
“The fifth amendment was designed to prevent the government from forcing you to testify in a trial in which you are the accused.”
Well, then, how about the 1st amendment? SCOTUS has already ruled that inherent in the First Amendment to free speech is the right not to speak/remain silent.
I don’t have any problem with reading something into a person’s refusal to testify in his own trial.
What I have trouble with is the warning “anything you say can and will be used against you.” It’s the WILL part that is chilling. It sounds like they’re saying, “who cares about truth, we’re going to try to twist everything you say.”
Most of my commanders and I in the military would always tell our young troops to say nothing to CID. CID has a problem of some really over-the-top agents. They seemed to be breathing, talking examples of the “we’re gonna twist what you say...”
I don’t have any problem with reading something into a person’s refusal to testify in his own trial.
What I have trouble with is the warning “anything you say can and will be used against you.” It’s the WILL part that is chilling. It sounds like they’re saying, “who cares about truth, we’re going to try to twist everything you say.”
Most of my commanders and I in the military would always tell our young troops to say nothing to CID. CID has a problem of some really over-the-top agents. They seemed to be breathing, talking examples of the “we’re gonna twist what you say...”
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.