Which leads us back to my post 62:
Kindly address “Admission by Silence” in view of “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
It looks like remaining silent can be used against you and speaking can be used against you
The tension between the right to remain silent and admission by silence has not been addressed as far as I can tell, but that's what I'm concerned with.
I'm also out of time on this end.
The rights to remain silent are part of your presumption of innocence.
In other words, it must be by some active effort of the prosecution that they find something that indicates to them you are guilty.
It is a fine line, but keeping you mouth shut can’t be converted into a crime or be used evidentialy against you.
My Isaacs citation pointed towards Butler v US, a famous case on it’s own right.
Here is the Isaacs case. Starting at about FN44 you can see the reasoning of the court.
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/256/654/274424/
When you have time, give it a look, it might clear up some of your questions.
Regards,
djf