[Lurking Libertarian]

Once the police read you your Miranda warnings, you can remain silent and it can't be used against you. The issue in this case was the defendant's silence before the police read him the Miranda warnings. (The prosecutor argued to the jury that the defendant was guilty of manslaughter, not just reckless driving, because he smashed into another car and never asked if the passengers in it were OK-- thus, according to the prosecutor, demonstrating his "indifference to human life".)

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.

[rockinqsranch]

“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.”

WOW! is all I can say. It had better end up at SCOTUS, because this isn’t right. Goes against all the traditional shut your mouth advice from way back.

[Hugin]

That's absurd. The Miranda warning informs you of your rights, it doesn't give them to you. The only reason for the warning at all is to make sure people know about them. Hopefully this will be overturned in federal court.

[MaxMax]

It should end up in the Supreme. The Judge made a horrible mistake by ignoring the mans rights regardless of the Miranda. Appeal will set him free.
And you can outright guarantee that anything you say before Miranda
absolutely will be held against you. And all Gov officials involved will lie.
They absolutely will lie. That's a solid guarantee.

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.

[trisham]

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.

[djf]

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.