Supreme Court Rules Fifth Amendment Has to Actually Be Invoked

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:

“Sounds like a Salem Witch trial. Your Honor, we asked her if she was a witch and she said nothing. GUILTY!”

Exactly! People that refuse to study history because “It’s booooring!” are doomed to repeat it.

Protect and serve?

Law enforcement officers are hyper-vigillant these day’z. I realize that's a broad brush statement, but for the most part citizens are ALL potential threats.

Common sense has been tossed out the window.

More groundless caprice from this court.

Another right that you have to somehow qualify for.

More fruit of our elites’ abandonment of the cornerstone principle of the republic, that our rights are God-given, not man-granted, and that those rights are therefore UNALIENABLE.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”

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!

Not so! The Witch trials couldn't act like a denial was proof until it was spoken; thus we get the awesome rules lawyer story:

The 80-year-old Corey was accused of witchcraft during the 1692 Salem trials, but he refused to enter a plea to the court. As punishment, he was laid naked in a pit in a field, and slowly pressed to death over two days. Heavy rocks were gradually placed upon his chest--but he refused to cry out in pain, or enter a plea, and each time he was asked to do so, he simply replied: "More weight."
An explanation: this guy was a Real Life Rules Lawyer, and knew that if he died under interrogation, he was still legally a Christian and his sons could inherit his property. Confessing would spare his life, but he would no longer be considered a Christian and his property would be forfeit. Denying the charges would result in his conviction and execution, as the trials were flagrantly rigged, and again his property would be forfeit. So, by refusing to enter any plea at all, he saved his family from poverty and earned a Dying Moment of Awesome. &mdsh; from TvTropes

Wow, that guy was impressive.

Yep.

Thank you for sharing that story.

You're welcome.

I hope I have that much courage in my day.

I hope I have it as well.
Though the story does illustrate something else — our justice-system is rapidly becoming worse than the Witch Trials.

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.