Posted on 06/17/2013 12:20:46 PM PDT by Olog-hai
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. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
What the Hell?! So we have a right to remain silent AFTER we’re told we have the right to remain silent or it WILL be used against us?
This nation is lost.
So you have to be told you have a right in order to invoke it? This makes absolutely no sense. If he’s in custody and subjected to interrogation, he has the right to remain silent and Miranda v. Arizona requires the police to inform the accused of the right to remain silent. If they don’t advise him of the right, they can’t use any statements made. Now they say that if you don’t make a statement, they can use that.
I’d have to read the whole opinion, but this does not square logically.
It's a misleading title.
You can invoke your fifth amendment rights or not, but if you answer one question you have effectively forfeited your fifth amendment rights.
Solution? Don't talk to police
If you are going to invoke your right to remain silent, STFU from the very beginning.
The prosecutor's hands would have been tied if he had instead replied ‘I'm invoking my right to silence, and I want a lawyer.’
In the end, I think it's all tweezer law, picking at little tiny things to try to overturn a conviction.
They’re arguing that because he was talking to police BEFORE he clammed up about a shotgun matching up to ballistics, he waived his right. Apparently one must immediately claim the right before one can use it which freaking ridiculous.
Rights are extant. The 5th amendment is an affirmation of the right, meaning it acknowledges that it exists. No amount of legal or political wrangling can make it such that I can’t choose to shut my mouth at any time: before, during, or after questioning.
This is just retarded. The decline has been especially precipitous as of late. Not sure what the Obama admin is threatening SCOTUS with, but it’s been particularly bad.
Not true, according to the article you can’t stop answering questions once you started. However, if on the onset of questioning you refuse to answer any question by self invoking, that can’t be used against you.
But you have the right to cease answering questions at any time. Was this one question in a series of questions, several before and several after?
Once he refused to answer, the police were supposed to stop talking to him.
But yes, NEVER talk to the police. If they’ve decided you did it, you aren’t gonna talk em out of it. You’re going to jail either way.
That’s my point! You MAY stop answering questions, but apparently that silence can be used AGAINST you. That’s REALLY messed up.
The 5th amendment is NOT CONDITIONAL. You can assert it as a right whenever you want: you simply shut your mouth.
The fact that being silent after answering simple questions can be construed as guilt is my problem with this verdict.
Remember, by law, the police are PERMITTED TO LIE to get information. Do not talk to police, not even during a traffic stop.
“Am I being detained or am I free to go?” should be your only question.
You can revoke your right to remain silent any time during questioning. You don’t waive it by talking. You only waive it if you’ve been given the warnings, and then agree to talk. Then anything you say can and will be used against you. But once you start talking, you say “I don’t wanna talk to you no more” the questioning is over.
Sorry; mean to say “invoke your right to remain silent.” Big difference with “revoke your right to remain silent.”
My mistake.
Oh I didn’t say I agreed with it.I think it stinks.
He should have kept his mouth shut. The police are asking you questions because they intend to use the answers, or non-answers, against you.
Technially, if you are silent, nothing can be used against you, since you haven’t said anything. The perp in the case had started answering questions and then stopped. It’s not pick and choose. Either stay silent or speak, whether mirandized or not.
Thank you, for a moment, I thought all was lost and madness the only rationale response.
I hoping that this is a very narrow holding that will only apply to a peculiar set of facts.
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.