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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-306 next last
To: CodeToad
The US Supreme Court already ruled on this and said we no longer enjoy the 5th Amendment, that silence can be used against you.

I have learned not to doubt you, but I would like to see this ruling.

61 posted on 08/15/2014 5:29:46 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“What good is a Miranda protection if his silence prior to being advised of it can be used as evidence of guilt?”

Do you think that a person that is drunk and plows into a car at a high rate of speed should walk because the prosecution noted in his trial that he was silent prior to having his rights read?


62 posted on 08/15/2014 5:30:10 PM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Exactly, the determination of guilt should be based upon facts that occurred prior to and during the accident. What happened afterwards, unless it is something akin to spoliation of evidence, has any bearing on whether he was acting with an indifference toward human life. Sure sounds like a poor decision, but that’s what I’ve come to expect from the Cal Sups over the last 20 years.


63 posted on 08/15/2014 5:31:48 PM PDT by Benito Cereno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
I see the ruling. Chilling.

Although this was a partial-silence case. He had done a lot of incriminating talk already, and clammed up at a particular point. That's a little different than this.

A pure silence used against you is no 'Great Leap Forward', to use my Communist friend's terminology, but this is not that.

I expect that the observation of a suspects pure silence will be admissible as proof of guilt soon enough.

64 posted on 08/15/2014 5:33:19 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I would have to vote guilty.

Well, you could find me innocent by reason of insane rage.

65 posted on 08/15/2014 5:33:28 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Thanks for the post. Interesting.


66 posted on 08/15/2014 5:34:46 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 50 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

If the man was drunk and drove at 67 in a 35, that should be sufficient proof of ‘depraved indifference to human life’. The silence before or after should be immaterial. If it was ruled as exculpatory, the trial should have been overturned as a mistrial (presumably by a higher court) and the man should have been tried again.


67 posted on 08/15/2014 5:35:32 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Well, you could find me innocent by reason of insane rage.

I might just have done that. :)

68 posted on 08/15/2014 5:35:58 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Frankly I’m okay with him being convicted. I do care if his silence prior to Mirandizing is ruled to be admissible as evidence of wrong-doing. If it is ruled to be admissible, and did not play into this trial’s outcome, it’s still wrong and a big deal.


69 posted on 08/15/2014 5:37:58 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 59 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Not unless that figured into the verdict. If it did, it should be subject to Constitutional challenge.


70 posted on 08/15/2014 5:39:22 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 62 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Wow....they make it sound like, they must GIVE you your rights before you actually have them..(?)

Weird...does the mean, you have NO rights until they say, ok..."now you have rights"...

Well...isn't that sweet of them....

71 posted on 08/15/2014 5:39:34 PM PDT by unread (Rescind the 17th. Amendment...bring the power BACK to the states...!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
Sometimes I'm just amazed at the lucidity of your posts. Other times, not so much.

Ya, I'd hit it.

(I have a bad reputation to keep, here....) :)

72 posted on 08/15/2014 5:40:38 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Think about that. Neighbor accuses you of beheading his wayward daughter who has turned to drugs and prostitution and you keep silent. Muslim prosecutor states that your silence proves that you beheaded his daughter.


73 posted on 08/15/2014 5:42:50 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 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“Not unless that figured into the verdict. If it did, it should be subject to Constitutional challenge.”

It may have figured in the verdict but most likely it was not a deciding factor.


74 posted on 08/15/2014 5:45:29 PM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Benito Cereno

“Exactly, the determination of guilt should be based upon facts that occurred prior to and during the accident. “

I think the facts that he was drunk and killed someone at over twice the speed limit had a little bearing in his conviction.


75 posted on 08/15/2014 5:46:31 PM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet

Red Herring.


76 posted on 08/15/2014 5:53:05 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

Probably not...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/17/supreme-court-silence-texas-murder-miranda/2394317/


77 posted on 08/15/2014 5:53:44 PM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

>> The US Supreme Court already ruled on this and said we no longer enjoy the 5th Amendment, that silence can be used against you.
>
> I have learned not to doubt you, but I would like to see this ruling.

I, too, would like a citable reference.


78 posted on 08/15/2014 6:02:08 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 61 | View Replies]

To: unread
Weird...does the mean, you have NO rights until they say, ok..."now you have rights"...

This is the model that they want.

79 posted on 08/15/2014 6:04:51 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 71 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Meant to ping you in my post 78.
80 posted on 08/15/2014 6:06:49 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 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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