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 ...
You have the absolute right to testify in favor of yourself and to explain why you are innocent. Failing to do that reasonably suggests guilt.
You have the absolute right to testify in favor of yourself and to explain why you are innocent. Failing to do that reasonably suggests guilt.
You have the absolute right to testify in favor of yourself and to explain why you are innocent. Failing to do that reasonably suggests guilt.
You have the absolute right to testify in favor of yourself and to explain why you are innocent. Failing to do that reasonably suggests guilt.
Gee, any day now I’m expecting a letter from the office of the U.S. Army Quartermaster stating that ... since I have an unused spare bedroom ... I will hereby be required to house and feed four soldiers, at my expense. /s
The Third is about the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that hasn’t been stomped on ... yet.
Silence IS an admission in Civil cases as well as criminal matters. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the silence when silence is followed in response to an accusation. Silence can be an admission by conduct: i.e. silence, flight etc.
Sorry for the multi posts.
Under criminal law, that is exactly what it means. A defendant's silence may not be used against him in any way. Standard jury instructions include language similar to the following:
Do not consider, for any reason at all, the fact that the defendant did not testify. Do not discuss that fact during your deliberations or let it influence your decision in any way.
If you actually believe that, be sure to state so loudly and clearly during voir dire so the court can excuse you from jury duty because you have no business on a jury. Our system of justice is based on the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” The prosecution must prove guilt. The accused is not responsible for explaining why (s)he is innocent. The accused is presumed innocent.
Please rethink your position.
Officer pulls over a driver and asks, "Have you had anything to drink tonight?"
"I just can't seem to recall."
The jury would hang you alive on that statement.
If the Court let’s this stand, could it not also be said that EVERY PUBLIC SERVANT including Every Police Officer in the US that refuses to answer questions about anything is hereby GUILTY of whatever accusation is made?? Sounds like it to me.
The best way to go is the Hillary Clinton way - - just repeat over and over, “I don’t recall.”
Not exactly a Constitutional scholar, are you?
Now they are attacking the 5th Amendment! I don’t think the naive liberals understand where the hell this is all headed unless O is trying to use sleight of hand to make us focus on a new issue while he changes the 1st and 2nd Amendments...
A defendant can assert his 5th amendment rights in a civil case just as he can in a criminal case. He does not admit liability or negligence by doing so.
The difference between taking the 5th in a civil case and a criminal case is that the jury in a civil case may infer negligence from the defendant's silence. The jury in a criminal case may not consider the defendant's silence for any reason and may not infer guilt.
So basically you would be forced to lie under oath thus committing perjury if you had to conceal some information to protect someone even if their intentions were honorable. The current CIC is probably one of the most dishonest and deceptive human beings to ever walk the face of this earth. Hopefully God and the spirits of long departed patriots will shorten his term.
Since the Supremes are taking up the question means it is an issue, which means some jurisdictions allow it.
Texas is a conservative oasis.
However, we do have some liberal state attorneys. I don’t know the details of this case. I am curious why Texas took the position it did. I plan to look into it.
Respectfully, I think you are confused. There is a difference between the court admitting silence as evidence of guilt and the court considering silence as an admission of guilt. Silence is never an admission of guilt in a court of law.
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.