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 ...
And if he had said something like “I’m sorry this happened”?
Bingo, admission of guilt or empathy for those injured without reference to the cause.
My late mother told me never talk to the police without a lawyer and she was a judge.
The same reason that the TX NG is being deployed
to the border: appearance.
My pleasure, Laz.
Salinas v. Texas
Docket: 12-246.
Opinion: June 17th, 2013.
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.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2013. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurred only in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan.
Please see my post #83.
When I've encounter officers I ask one question, ""Am I obligated by law
to answer your questions?"" They always say no and I thank them for their advice.
Constitution protection isn't just for talking, it's also for not talking.
P.S. You know I just gotta maintain at least a 23.67% accuracy rating! :)
Your are with good company ....
” Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan.”
It would appear that most of the Freepers on this thread are in judicial communion with Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.
You forgot to add in overcharging, then plea bargaining.
Yer welcome. Sadly, the case does exist.
Terrible verdict. What about stunned silence? What about shock?
What is the CID?
He should of requested to be read his Miranda rights.
Here is the text of the Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Can you explain to me how the judge violated this guy's fifth amendment rights when he allowed the jury to consider his silence in the face of the fact that he had just killed an 8 year old girl as evidence of his state of mind at the time of the accident?
Are you perhaps reading something into that amendment that isn't really there?
Silence is not “evidence” except with His Arrogance and Eric “The Corrupt” Holder or other supporters of communism.
Tell that to Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
You do realize that you are in agreement with Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg?
Now, where in the text of the Fifth Amendment does it say that the judge could not allow the jury to hear about his callous silence as an indicator of his state of mind at the time of the accident?
If he knows about his so-called "Miranda rights" why would he request that they be read to him?
[eyeroll]
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.