Replies

Well, Braniac, you better post it then. Rush doesn't have to incriminate himself, and won't. He has not admitted to any illegalities that I've heard.
You must be smart or somthing. You must have inside information. You know stuff that even the media doesn't know.
YOU know he's guilty, therefore he's dropped a notch on your hero status scale.
Fill us in.

Well, here's the law. Basically, if someone makes a statement in front of you and you don't deny it, it can be considered an admission by silence...

CALJIC 2.71.5
California Jury Instructions, Criminal, 7th Ed.
2.71.5 ADOPTIVE ADMISSION -- SILENCE, FALSE OR EVASIVE REPLY TO ACCUSATION
If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when [a] [the] defendant (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded [him] [her] an opportunity to reply; (2) [failed to make a denial] [or] [made false, evasive or contradictory statements,] in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to [him] [her] or in [his] [her] presence, charging [him] [her] with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect [him] [her] with its commission; and (3) that [he] [she] heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of [his] [her] [silence] [and] [conduct] on that occasion may be considered against [him] [her] as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the [silence] [and] [conduct] of the accused in the face of it. Unless you find that [a] [the] defendant's [silence] [and] [conduct] at the time indicated an admission that the accusatory statement was true, you must entirely disregard the statement.

So this is how you would fill in the blanks at trial.
If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when Rush (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded him an opportunity to reply; (2) failed to make a denial in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to him or in his presence, charging him with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect him with its commission; and (3) that he heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of his silence on that occasion may be considered against him as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the silence of the accused in the face of it.

The civil version of the instruction is much less stringent. Bottom line - if someone is accused of something, and has the chance to deny it, and doesn't, then it can come in against them as evidence that they are guilty.

Rush was accused of illegaly buying and using prescription drugs. Rush never denied it. He had every chance to deny it. In a court of law, a jury can use that fact as proof he's guilty.