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.”
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...”
I sure hope you are not an attorney or in any way associated with the jurisprudence system.
Asking about the other parties condition could ALSO be introduced, as a 'guilty conscience' presumption of guilt.
Silence IS the correct behavior, ALL speaking should be done through an attorney.
California just nullified that.
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.
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.
Not everyone copes with horror and tragedy and fear in the same way. Insisting that silence is indicative of guilt, just because YOU wouldn't remain silent, is moronic.
Equally plausible: He knew what happened, and he was scared out of his mind, and he knew that anything he said could easily lead to worse things for himself... including getting beaten to death right there on the roadside, as has happened recently in some urban US area with a struck child (who may have actually ran into the SIDE of the moving vehicle).