Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt
Al' Reuters ^ | Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:48pm EST

Posted on 01/20/2013 6:08:09 AM PST by Lazamataz

Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial. Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: docket; donutwatch; fifthamendment; govtabuse; miranda; police; rapeofliberty; righttoremainsilent; salinas; scotus; silence; silent; stupidityidiocy; tyranny; waronliberty; whatsthepoint
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-172 next last
To: BuckeyeTexan

I don’t practice criminal defense or con law. However, I think there is a conflict on the issue of using silence as evidence of guilt, which is why the matter is before the Supreme Court.

My discussion is based on my perception of the rationale for the 5th Amendment. We don’t force people to take the stand in their defense, because it seems wrong to do so. We DO allow defendants to testify. It seems fair to me to allow the fact that the Defendant elected not to testify to be argued. The defendant was still not forced to testify.

This only matters if we are trying to determine the truth.


101 posted on 01/20/2013 1:11:07 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JZoback
I am not surprised the SCOTUS will hear the case....the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let this “silence as guilt” into evidence and hopefully the court will throw out this ruling...

It is the SCOTUS job to clean up lower courts screwed up rulings...


I hope you're right. The potential for damaging the Constitution is huge, if they do anything less than slap this down hard.

What was the 5th thinking?
102 posted on 01/20/2013 2:40:30 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired; Lazamataz

So, in short - you have to be asked to be TAKEN INTO CUSTODY before you can remain silent? Great.......


103 posted on 01/20/2013 3:27:27 PM PST by 4Liberty (Some on our "Roads & Bridges" head to the beach. Others head to their offices, farms, libraries....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Wishful Thinking

104 posted on 01/20/2013 3:55:46 PM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesnÂ’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Do not talk to the police...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


105 posted on 01/20/2013 4:05:24 PM PST by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired
Second, the State asserts that this case is an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the conflict at issue.

In that case could they just use common sense? Nawwh probably not, no profit in that.

106 posted on 01/20/2013 4:10:34 PM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesnÂ’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

No offense or disrespect intended but you lack experience. First, police officers look for ‘probable cause’ and they have a lot of leeway on exactly how they interpret what that is. If you say “she ran into the street and I was worried that she would be harmed so ***I pursued her*** until I saw it was no use so I backed off but I never touched her” and so on, the officers will hear only that you “pursued her” and then cuff you, book you and jail you.

It is ALWAYS best to have a lawyer talk to the police. Never advise anyone to talk to the police without an attorney.


107 posted on 01/20/2013 4:19:19 PM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Looks like we’re on the path to Napoleonic Law - guilty until proven innocent.


108 posted on 01/20/2013 4:46:49 PM PST by shove_it (the 0bama regime are the people Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

Considering I believe God has already judged us, and has found us to be unworthy of his divine protection, it would be safe to assume that based on Mark 15 that the court will rule against the 5th amendment and in favor of the corrupt state. You can guarantee it at this point.


109 posted on 01/20/2013 4:49:28 PM PST by DarkWaters ("Deception is a state of mind --- and the mind of the state" --- James Jesus Angleton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

There is a Youtube video called Do Not talk to cops’ and there’s a reason to it.


110 posted on 01/20/2013 6:23:54 PM PST by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
We don’t force people to take the stand in their defense, because it seems wrong to do so. We DO allow defendants to testify. It seems fair to me to allow the fact that the Defendant elected not to testify to be argued. The defendant was still not forced to testify.

If not testifying is considered evidence of guilt, then every defendant is absolutely being forced to testify.

What you're suggesting would reverse the burden of proof from the State to the defendant. Terrible idea for the anachronistic among us who still value liberty.
111 posted on 01/20/2013 6:33:15 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
You only have the right to remain silent after the LEO reads you that right? Hahahahahah!

And we all thought that the rights in the Bill Of Rights came from our Creator? No, it comes from the police!

-PJ

112 posted on 01/20/2013 6:46:25 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

It’s Houston. I think they use Mex-can law there and in Austin.


113 posted on 01/20/2013 6:51:05 PM PST by RetiredTexasVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby
“Why do you NEED to remain silent? No one who is innocent should NEED to remain silent.”

In Obama's Constitution of Negative Rights, lack of giving testimony is evidence of guilt.

Does this apply to redacted Fast And Furious documents? Are we to assume that Obama and Holder are guilty because they refused to give the evidence that was requested?

-PJ

114 posted on 01/20/2013 6:53:23 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"Have you had anything to drink tonight?"

Yes officer, I had 3 Diet Cokes.

115 posted on 01/20/2013 7:50:44 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Humans have eliminated natural selection. Morons are now a protected species. They breed and vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear
Yeah, it would be amusing if Roberts had not taken a dive on Obama Care. Who’s to say which way this guy will go in the future. He wouldn’t be the first Supreme to turn after be selected.

In the Lord of the Rings there are Nine rings given to mankind, and these corrupted them into the Nazgul, some quicker than others but all fell to the lure of power... there are nine seats on the Supreme court that seem to have a similar effect on judges. Coincidence?

116 posted on 01/20/2013 8:46:22 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DNME

“Thank you for volunteering, Citizen. We will assign four soldiers to your residence shortly.”

—U.S. Army Quartermaster


117 posted on 01/20/2013 8:52:50 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Mouton; Cboldt
Note though, that confiscation of property can be done on probable cause, because confiscation of property isn't a form of punishment.

I refer you gents to the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

First note the underlined portion: this strictly states that the unpaid taking of property is prohibited -- and indeed the public use portion must be in effect, for the Law Enforcement Agent/Agency is acting in public office.

So then this restriction applies even if such takings are "authorized by law" -- but authorized certainly doesn't mean that there has been due process. A prime example would be Ruby Ridge: Lon was authorized to kill, that authorization was not under the due process of law -- as the sixth amendment clearly states that in all criminal matters one is to be given the ability to defend himself and none of those at Ruby Ridge were.

It is therefore evident that even if there is some "authorization" for these "administrative takings" these are not necessarily under due process of law; in such manner we begin to see these seizure procedures as the evil usurpation [by the executive] that they are.

118 posted on 01/20/2013 9:07:08 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Ten little, nine little, eight little amendments, seven, little six little five little amendments, for little three little two little amendments....setting them up like bowling pins, aren’t they?


119 posted on 01/20/2013 9:59:17 PM PST by Anima Mundi (Envy is just passive, lazy greed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

If questioned by police [FOR ANY REASON], you should immediately invoke both the right to keep silent and that all communications by the police must be made to your attorney.

Then, you clam up - totally. Answer NO questions AT ALL.

It does not matter whether you are considered a suspect or not. You keep your trap shut and let your mouthpiece do the talking.

Seems that, in the case here, the police are relying on the fact that the man was voluntarily talking and THEN clammed up.


120 posted on 01/20/2013 11:56:08 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-172 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson