Posted on 07/02/2013 9:13:37 AM PDT by RC one
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute explains that the Salinas v. Texas case was intended to be about whether prosecutors during a trial could cast aspersions on a defendant’s silence during questioning that took place prior to arrest — prior to the defendent being told he had the right to remain silent. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that they wouldn’t need to rule on the matter because the defendant had never invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection. This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it:
“Many police departments have long used the technique that they are not arresting a person, they are detaining them, so do not have to give them a Miranda warning. If you ask if you are being detained, they will likely respond that “it depends on what you have to tell me.””
That is exactly what I was thinking. You could be making a statement thinking you are a witness. Then at some point you realize you are the suspect by the tone of the questioning and shut up. Now the problem is you would probably have to take the stand to tell why you answered the way you did. Also you may not want to take the stand so your answer will not be heard.
There's actually a SD shooting trial somewhat similar to the TM/AZ case coming up in my local area. You haven't heard about it though because a white guy shot another white guy and then claimed SD. The events are anything but simple.
Say nothing to the police except your name, “I was in fear for my life”, and “I want a lawyer”, until that lawyer tells you different (requests for beverages are acceptable).
And there's nothing bad about that, if she's under oath check out her story and if it doesn't pan out: perjury.
There's many other ways to handle things; saying that they made a statement or answered some questions invalidates their 5th Amendment completely overlooks the self-incrimination aspect. What if, for example you were defending in court and after answering some questions were asked when did you quit beating your wife?
— there's no way to answer that w/o incriminating yourself (unless you attack the premise).
"Am I free to go?"
"Am I being illegally detained?"
fair enough. that then gives you even more justification to remain silent and makes it all appear less... guilty.
Maybe in a secret FISA court, too! [/sarc][/cynic]
I officially loathe Robert’s Court.Yea, thank god for Republican presidents appointing those conservative judges or we'd really be screwed.
The 5th assumes the right to remain silent, why not the right to give partial answers, all, or none.
from an earlier thread. . .
Court say pre-Miranda silence can be used
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3032376/posts
The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person’s silence against them if it comes before he’s told of his right to remain silent.
The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.
Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.
The high court upheld that decision. …
So once again either 5 or 4 of these political hacks are clueless as to what the constitution says.
We non-judges can certainly form our own opinion about what we would LIKE to see out of the court but how ignorant or corrupt are these traitors to the constitution?
If the phony best and brightest of our legal minds cannot figure out what a small document (with its own user’s manual, the Federalist Papers) means then I am 100% certain that ignorance of the law MUST and SHOULD be anyone’s excuse.
Lets face it more recent legislation and regulations are much more obtuse than the Constitution and orders of magnitude longer.
So take your pick! Either 4 or 5 of them need to be removed from the bench and tried for treason to the Constitution.
How about an unintelligent person...or a non-English speaking person...or a visitor to this country.Someone who,for whatever reason,doesn't understand the concept of "legal rights",let alone understand the US Constitution? An example of what I'm saying would be Miss Slim Jeans from the the Zimmerman trial.
Ditto TRUTH post of the day..
All your Amendment are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Not to worry; DOJ/Holder will sue to stop any revelation that Obama and his Staff orchestrated/ordered the IRS to stifle the oppostion to his re-Coronation as the "Emperor for Life".....
No, but according to the jackasses on the supreme court, they can use your silence against you. What the hell happened to this country?
If people ever really fully understand how screwed the law has become in regards of any of their rights, the jobs of the police are going to become much more difficult, because even witnesses to crimes will not believe it is in their best interests to talk to police.
Officer Jackboot: Hey fella, what time is it?
Citizen: I'm sorry officer, but I do not talk to police for any reason without a lawyer representing me present.
...
Officer Jackboot: "Which way did the criminal run?"
Citizen: I'm sorry officer, but I do not talk to police for any reason without a lawyer representing me present. If you'd like to wait until he gets here I'll be glad to answer any question he'll allow me to.
...
The Supreme Court is way outside of its Constitutional limits and have lost all legal credibility.
They can stand on soap boxes and screech their latest screed to the moon for all I care.
They are despicable.
Sounds like a Salem Witch trial.
Your Honor, we asked her if she was a witch and she said nothing. GUILTY! Toss her in the lake, if she floats she is guilty, hang her. If she drowns, she is innocent bury her.
Next
Tea Party member number 27, report to the Docket!
If you are involved in an incident, call 911 immediately after the incident and report that there has been an incident. Tell the dispatch where this took place and whether there is need for an ambulance.
Then...say nothing else. When the officers arrive, invoke your 5th amendment right and request a lawyer be present before questioning.
Otherwise, you'll regret running your mouth.
“A police officers job is first and foremost to investigate and collect evidence for possible prosecution.”
Unfortunately, that’s not really his first priority, however, I get what you are saying because that’s what they do anymore.
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.