[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

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.

[Sloth]

Matthew 27:12-14 "... and while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him, 'Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?' But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly."

Jesus was guilty!

[Big Giant Head]

California Jury Instructions,

Dude, we're not dealing with a court of law here. These are allegations in a tabloid. He never denied meeting with aliens either, so I guess that's true also.

If he's in court, in California, then what you posted can be applied.

Bottom line is you WANT him to be guilty, you are pushing for it. You are trying to convict on heresay. He is NOT your hero, and you're a liar. Thanks for playing.

[Spunky]

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.

The way I read this it has to do with someone who has been charged of something and is a "defendent in a trial".

To my knowledge Rush has not been charged or gone to trial for anything.

[Longbowwolf]

California Law is going to be tough to use in Florida.....
Being California Law, I would be dubious of its' constitutionality anyway.
Also, these are just jury instructions. I am unsure as to whether this could be construed as law. Can a court charge a subject of California with violation of such a law? I think not. Not to hammer on all Californians, as I know alot of good folks from your state, but it seems that some juries in your state are picked out of the brain dead bastions of Hollywood. Considering the track record of California Jurors;.....well, Lets just say that a California DA could have pictures and DNA evidence and a Calipornia jury would likely find Michael Jackson innocent. We will soon find out.

[been_lurking]

You cite a California jury instruction as an example of law, applicable to a Florida criminal case?

Just what kind of lawyer are you???