Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
I thought I was just a lone voice calling in the wilderness .
You are throwing out a lot that I object to but you are not being completely factual ... just throwing mud on the wall ...
Thanks but please quote me and respond directly to my quotes in the future. Please stick with the issues and quit trying to make it personal. Thank you.
************************
Agreed.
**************************
I hope that it does. This is a very dangerous ruling.
“Then it was my take you should have objected to the premise you quoted in that post.”
I did discuss the issue and responded three times to your #38. At that time you were not trying to restate my position so I made no such objection.
“Why didn’t you object to my reference to tying the silence to conviction. It appeared to me that didn’t bother you.”
I thought my posts were clear that he was not convicted on his silence.
“Do I think he should walk on that technicality? No, but I would do my best to avoid that technicality existing.”
That was my position. Both the judge and the prosecutors should avoid allowing any justification for a retrial. However, in this situation, five justices found no problem.
Surprising.
Look, you didn’t come out and directly say it, but you did copy and quote and not object to the quote. Make of that what you will and so will I.
Just own up to the impression you sloppily left laying around.
I concede you did not directly say it.
I do not concede you did not leave that impression.
If you disagree with his pre Miranda silence being presented to the jury in the conviction phase, then say so and we’ll agree on that point.
I do believe there are valid counter arguments here.
Evidently the pre Miranda silence was not used to convict, so folks don’t think it’s an issue.
I do because even if it is used in the penalty phase, what value is it? The guy could be a psychopath and talk non-stop saying how sorry he was just to curry favor. A guy remaining silent may truly be remorseful, depressed, even suicidal over it.
It’s of no value, and the introduction of it would seem to be prejudicial since it can’t be used to prove anything. “He didn’t even tell the parents he was sorry.” He could feel that would add to their pain. Who knows. It could still sway people on the jury unreasonably.
The guy seriously screwed up, so this isn’t intended to help him. It is merely academic based on the Miranda concept and reasoned contributory evidence.
And no, I am not an attorney.
I believe this guy got what he deserved. I did not want to see silence used in future cases to convict. You did say it was not a factor in the conviction here. It did seem to me that you didn’t mind it being used that way in other cases.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. How hard would it have been for you to simply say that you didn’t actually support that? I would have probably said sorry about that and it would have been forgotten.
Yes. My concern is the precedent that it sets.
>> 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.
>
> I hope that it does. This is a very dangerous ruling.
Given recent rulings such possibility does /not/ fill me with hope — rather an uneasy, low-level sense of dread.
The 1997 case SALINAS v. UNITED STATES: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/522/52 (unanimous)
I don’t feel confident about it either.
The supreme court has already said “...the exercise of a Constitutional right CANNOT be converted to a crime...”
So if someone refuses to answer, or simply remains silent, the jury or the judge cannot judge him guilty (or find him innocent).
They need to rely on more pertinent facts.
We need to talk about this over lunch soon.
My treat, and you’ll lose. :)
“So you have to utter some magic incantation for silence not to be used against you?”
That sums it up perfectly. Just exactly what magical verbiage is required?
“And ... I trust Laz .. so if Laz trusts you - then you are solid in my book.”
Thanks!
What the USSC said was that if your silence can be deemed useful they can use it. There really wasn’t any limit to the logical course that had to be taken before your silence could be used. They simply said that if you don’t in some way exercise your right to silence then your silence at any time can be used against you.
In the court case it was a guy that was talking but then refused to answer the specific question of quilt so his silence could then be stated as, “Well, he was talking but he wouldn’t answer if he did it, and we take that as an admission of guilt, and so should you, the jury.”
As another poster put it, just what magical incantation are we required to say before our silence, our 5th Amendment right, is not used against us?
What is most important about Miranda is that people never know how their seemingly innocent words can trap them.
Example: Murder at 11:00pm at the 7-11. Cops, “Where you there then?” Suspect, “Yes.” GUILTY! Actually, the guy left 10 seconds prior to the crime and is innocent. However, the jury hears, “He fits the description and he admits he was there.”
“Just own up to the impression you sloppily left laying around.”
I own up to nothing of the sort. I was stating facts to the best of my knowledge. YOU took my statement of facts and then made up a statement of my personal opinion and posted same.
Mine too. I’m less worried about it now, but it is something to watch.
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.