[TexasGator]

1. He plowed into a car at a high speed while drunk killing a person.

2. He was convicted and got off on a ‘constitutional technicality.

3. This decision reversed the previous reversal.

He was NOT convicted on his silence.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

1. He plowed into a car at a high speed while drunk killing a person. 2. He was convicted and got off on a ‘constitutional technicality. 3. This decision reversed the previous reversal. He was NOT convicted on his silence.

The prosecutor argued to the jury that his silence was evidence of guilt. The California Court of Appeal said he should get a new trial at which the prosecutor couldn't make that argument. All the other evidence would still come in. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and said the prosecutor was right.