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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-172 next last
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
The British version

The British also accept the totality of the evidence.

In American courts, the jury could see a video of a man committing murder but if the defense proves he didn’t receive his Miranda rights, the judge will dismiss the case.

41 posted on 01/20/2013 7:05:08 AM PST by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
-- ... if the defense proves he didn't receive his Miranda rights, the judge will dismiss the case. --

Only if statements by the accused are part of the evidence in the trial. Failure to Mirandize results in suppression of evidence. If the ONLY evidence is a confession, then the case disappears along with the evidence. But, you postulated an independent video, and that evidence isn't suppressed on account of the accused giving a confession before being told he has the right to remain silent.

42 posted on 01/20/2013 7:10:17 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Before the Fall, I don't know if God needed courts in heaven, but if He did, you know what Satan's profession was.

I know you are being facetious, but there is a strong element of truth in your joke. "Satan" means (roughly) "One who accuses" and in ancient Hebrew theology Satan was like a prosecuting attorney. If you look at the story of Job (without the interpretations and connotations that come from a Christian world-view) you can see that the Hebrews saw Satan as the angel tasked with bringing man's faults before God. Only later did that name become associated with the fallen angel/ultimate source of worldly evil in Judaic tradition.

So yes, Satan was (loosely) a lawyer and prosecutor by trade...

43 posted on 01/20/2013 7:15:51 AM PST by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwaet! Lar bith maest hord, sothlice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
How ironic. The Fifth Amendment protections of no self-incrimination grew out of the legal shift away from widespread use of torture and forced confessions in late 16th and early 17th century in England. At the time, anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was considered guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly used to compel "cooperation."

The Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations.

So, Democrats, by overthrowing the Fifth Amendment and the right of no self-incrimination, would essentially be condoning a return to torture and forced confessions -- the very thing they used to beat Bush over the head with for eight years.

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Democrat."

44 posted on 01/20/2013 7:19:30 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Don't stay silent.
"I don't recall" will cover it.
Concussion helps.
45 posted on 01/20/2013 7:21:50 AM PST by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"We declare Nell a witch. Hens stop clucking
When she passes them by. Swine cease mucking.
Seize her now." So they brought her,
Chair-tied, dunked in water.
"She's no witch if she drowns in this ducking."


46 posted on 01/20/2013 7:22:16 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I am glad you did bring it up as an example of over extentions of the law as it allowed me to vent on this subject. Over the past 30 or so years, many of our rights have been diminished, slowly at first, but once the trend began to limit or remove rights, the speed at which they are being eroded has accelerated. Whoa to those who think they are safer as they remove their legal protections. Like the proverbial frog in the heating water in a pot, we will be boiled in our lust for ultimate security or enforcement of laws sans legal protections.


47 posted on 01/20/2013 7:25:23 AM PST by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom

Same as for the President.


48 posted on 01/20/2013 7:27:27 AM PST by Kadric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

The problem the British version forestalls is concocting an alibi in connivance with friends and relatives. If the cops ask you where you were last night, and in fact you were burglaring Mrs. Sweeney’s home, and you say, “playing pinochle with my cousin”, the cops can interrogate your cousin before the two of you confer to concoct an alibi. If you clam up when initially interviewed, and later rely on the pinochle alibi, a jury is entitled, in the British system, to doubt the veracity of the alibi.

Law enforcement officials have broad immunity from liability for unsuccessful prosecution for obvious reasons. The immunity does not apply to malicious prosecutions, where they know the defendant to be innocent. As a practical matter, protestations of innocence by the accused have very little probative value.


49 posted on 01/20/2013 7:29:26 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Please, don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We are 100% the Soviet Union at this point. Probably have been, since the 1990's.

Well, look: we're not all waiting in line at the only (government-run) department store to buy shoes. Yet.

I suppose Progressives can't be expected to achieve all their goals at once.

But perhaps after a few more years of Obamacare, increasingly draconian environmental regulations, higher business taxes, subservience to UN treaties, and forced unionization, we can all look forward to the grand re-opening of "GUM" in Obama Square (formerly known as Times Square) after the ball drops in 2017.

50 posted on 01/20/2013 7:31:16 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Cogito, ergo armatum sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
The Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations.

Actually, the Puritans continued the practice of compelling "cooperation" in New England.

See the case of Giles Corey, who was pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials while heroically refusing to plead guilty or innocent.

As with so many things, the Puritans weren't opposed to such practices, they just wanted to be the ones in charge of using them. For instance, they were most definitely not in favor of "freedom of religion" for the individual. They were in favor of the freedom of the state to impose the "right" religion on all individuals.

51 posted on 01/20/2013 7:33:20 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JZoback
Let’s hope they don’t muddy the waters on the 5 th amendment

I think Kelo already accomplished that.

52 posted on 01/20/2013 7:38:08 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

As Piers Morgan would ask (incessantly), “Why do you NEED to remain silent? No one who is innocent should NEED to remain silent.”

SIgh.

It’s not a Bill of Needs. It’s a Bill of Rights.


53 posted on 01/20/2013 7:38:53 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

“As a practical matter, protestations of innocence by the accused have very little probative value.”

and hense reason to not use one’s refusal to answer questions as a point of evidence of guilt?


54 posted on 01/20/2013 7:40:10 AM PST by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Like the guy losing his motel because a crime was committed in one of the rooms he rented out.


55 posted on 01/20/2013 7:45:31 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
In American courts, a failure to read a suspect his Miranda rights would not bar prosecution, it would only prevent the introduction of the defendants statements in response to police questions, as well as any evidence the police uncover as a result of such questioning. Regardless of Miranda warnings, anything the suspect volunteered to police is admissible.
56 posted on 01/20/2013 7:47:37 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Please, don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
In American courts, a failure to read a suspect his Miranda rights would not bar prosecution, it would only prevent the introduction of the defendants statements in response to police questions, as well as any evidence the police uncover as a result of such questioning. Regardless of Miranda warnings, anything the suspect volunteered to police is admissible.
57 posted on 01/20/2013 7:47:54 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Please, don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

58 posted on 01/20/2013 7:52:41 AM PST by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Please don’t be silly. I was simply pointing out that juries and prosecutors give very little weight to protestations of innocent. The same can be said for police. Nobody says, “hey, he said he didn’t do it, so he must be innocent.” Not everyone is as honest as you. Or as gullible.

Cops are skilled at drawing suspects into giving contradictory or inconsistent accounts, which is a valuable investigative tool. A lot of people think they can talk their way out of a jam, because their parents, teachers, coworkers and supervisors never had the energy and persistence to pursue their jive stories. People who have simple, unembellished stories are usually dismissed as suspects.


59 posted on 01/20/2013 7:58:05 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Please, don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

I can’t see how he’s assumed guilty for not answering questions. He did answer some questions, probably too many beyond confirming name and identity. He should have answered only with “I will speak with you only when my attorney is present.”
And you’re right, the 5th amendment clearly states you have the right to avoid self-incrimination, in addition to the Miranda rights to remain silent. He does not have to answer ANY questions.
If silence is agreement, then a silent hung head in response to a barrage of questions of abusing your spouse or children is an admission of guilt, take everyone away.


60 posted on 01/20/2013 7:59:23 AM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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