Yes I am an attorney.
Asking about the other parties condition could ALSO be introduced, as a 'guilty conscience' presumption of guilt.
In this case the issue was not being guilty of causing the crash, the issue was whether or not the defendant showed a callous disregard of life. In that case, had he asked about the condition of the people in the other car, it would have been evidence of having at least some concern for the lives of the other people. However his callous refusal to inquire as to their well being was quite relevant to his state of mind, which was the primary issue in the case.
BTW, Since when did the Miranda decision become the holy grail of constitutional conservatives?
We’re not talking about silence regarding your own role in an accident. We’re talking about silence while you know that someone could be dying just over yonder and you’re refusing to say anything to let people know someone is seriously injured.
In a situation such as that, it is letting someone die unnecessarily.
Oh, that's a shame.
"Asking about the other parties condition could ALSO be introduced, as a 'guilty conscience' presumption of guilt."
In this case the issue was not being guilty of causing the crash, the issue was whether or not the defendant showed a callous disregard of life.
Neat. So there is now a law, "Callous Disregard of Life in the First Degree", in which people are ordered by the state to care deeply about other people's condition. I did not know that, counselor.
But according to the particulars in the article, his conviction was NOT for 'callous disregard', but for the act of vehicular manslaughter, which conviction was reinstated.
In THAT situation, saying anything at all WILL be twisted to show a 'guilty conscience' and thusly, Mens Rea.
Hell, I'm not even an attorney, and *I* know that.
With this one ruling, you are now damned if you speak, and damned if you don't.
I don't see how an attorney can miss this -- perhaps you are a prosecutor and cheer this new legal weaponry.