Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Silence Can Be Used Against Suspects
AP ^ | Aug 15, 2014 | PAUL ELIAS

Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.

Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.

Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.

Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: california; richardtom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-306 next last
To: P-Marlowe; savedbygrace

I’m not familiar with the facts of this case. Did the police not know someone was injured?


21 posted on 08/15/2014 4:48:16 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
And that is why it is a correct ruling.

It's not that easy.

"How are the people in that car?"

"Which car is that?"

"The one over there."

"You mean the one you hit when you were speeding?"

"I didn't say that. You know, the other car."

...

Being forced to open your mouth to avoid being considered as wantonly indifferent to human life necessarily requires you to risk incriminating yourself.

We may now need to learn how to plead the Fifth along with Driver's Ed.

22 posted on 08/15/2014 4:48:51 PM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

““You have the right to remain silent!”

Didn’t these fools ever watch Dragnet?”

Didn’t you read the story?


23 posted on 08/15/2014 4:50:06 PM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
P-Marlowe said: "But everyone here seems to treat it like the holy grail of conservative constitutional principles."

The overwhelming benefit of the Miranda warning was that it assured that the cops knew your rights and were aware of their obligation to respect them.

It's pretty hard to tell a person in one breath, "You have the right to remain silent" and then in the next breath tell them that if you don't speak you will be charged with a crime.

It's similarly difficult to tell a person one minute that "You have a right to an attorney before any questioning" and then insist that they answer your questions without the benefit of an attorney.

If you don't believe that cops have coerced confessions out of innocent people then you haven't been paying attention.

24 posted on 08/15/2014 4:51:09 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

So the Government controls what Criminal Charges are to be brought against the Citizen.

The Government then controls what Evidence May be introduced in said Trial.

The Government controls and decides WHO can be a witness and what they can say, and who may Represent the defendant and their speech also.

The government then tells the JURY What their law means and that they cannot deviate regardless of the circumstance, Which is an Out and Out LIE, Jury Nullification has ALWAYS been the Safeguard the people had against Tyranny and has been used to nullify bad law throughout history

Why do we have trials anyway??


25 posted on 08/15/2014 4:51:43 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

our rights predate the constitution. they come from God. the fed and state constitutions guarantee them, they are not the originators of those rights.


26 posted on 08/15/2014 4:53:46 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; Travis McGee
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.

California has gone full-on Communist.

Saw California's conversion to a Stalinist State coming for two decades.

27 posted on 08/15/2014 4:53:51 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It sounds like they’re saying, “who cares about truth, we’re going to try to twist everything you say.”

Well, duh--it's not "like" they're saying that, they are saying that.

28 posted on 08/15/2014 4:55:25 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
This WILL be overturned.

As a full-on Communist Collective, California will find a way around it.

Hell, they just might set up checkpoints at the border and a Berlin Wall, and ignore the ruling altogether.

29 posted on 08/15/2014 4:55:37 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin; xzins
That Mr. Tom did not ask about the people in the other vehicle is a fact.

Under the ACLU interpretation of the constitution that would be a "FACT" which the jury should not be apprised of. Would you agree that the jury should be precluded from knowing that Mr. Tom held his tongue while a little girl was dying in front of him?

The prosecutors ASSUMED that this fact somehow demonstrated Tom’s guilt, when it did no such thing.

They argued it. The jury agreed with their argument. It is a logical conclusion to draw.

Someone who can’t distinguish between evidence and assumption, or who thinks that silence is “as good as a confession”, should be thrown off juries.

The jury is instructed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. If he was silent, they were free to draw whatever inference they could from that fact. It is relevant to his demeanor at the time of the accident and is hence, evidence of a guilty conscience.

I will ask you again. Should the jury have been prohibited from knowing this FACT? Or should it have come in as evidence?"

30 posted on 08/15/2014 4:56:48 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kennard; P-Marlowe
You're absolutely right, Kennard.

When you open your mouth without legal counsel, things you say in complete innocence can be twisted and used against you.

31 posted on 08/15/2014 4:58:34 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

They cannot possibly be saying that. It would be saying, “We’ll abuse our office and commit fraud if necessary.” How could a court order everyone to be given a warning that the system is allowed to fraudulently convict you?


32 posted on 08/15/2014 4:58:40 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I think is is perfectly legitimate for the government to use evidence of your demeanor following a crime including your failure to ask about the condition of a child that was critically injured in a crash in which you were involved.

I sure hope you are not an attorney or in any way associated with the jurisprudence system.

Asking about the other parties condition could ALSO be introduced, as a 'guilty conscience' presumption of guilt.

Silence IS the correct behavior, ALL speaking should be done through an attorney.

California just nullified that.

33 posted on 08/15/2014 4:59:14 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; HartleyMBaldwin; xzins
Would you agree that the jury should be precluded from knowing that Mr. Tom held his tongue while a little girl was dying in front of him?

It should have no bearing on the decision of the jury.

34 posted on 08/15/2014 5:05:35 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; xzins; Jet Jaguar
I sure hope you are not an attorney or in any way associated with the jurisprudence system.

Yes I am an attorney.

Asking about the other parties condition could ALSO be introduced, as a 'guilty conscience' presumption of guilt.

In this case the issue was not being guilty of causing the crash, the issue was whether or not the defendant showed a callous disregard of life. In that case, had he asked about the condition of the people in the other car, it would have been evidence of having at least some concern for the lives of the other people. However his callous refusal to inquire as to their well being was quite relevant to his state of mind, which was the primary issue in the case.

BTW, Since when did the Miranda decision become the holy grail of constitutional conservatives?

35 posted on 08/15/2014 5:06:14 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; HartleyMBaldwin

How did the policeman not know there were injured parties in the other car?


36 posted on 08/15/2014 5:06:32 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
It should have no bearing on the decision of the jury.

Should the fact that he didn't bother to inquire as to the condition of the dying 8 year old have been withheld from the jury?

37 posted on 08/15/2014 5:07:28 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Read it before. Reread it. Doesn’t change my opinion one bit.

What good is a Miranda protection if his silence prior to being advised of it can be used as evidence of guilt? It completely invalidates the Miranda protection.

If he talks he may incriminate himself. If he doesn’t talk it can be used as evidence of guilt.

This won’t stand. It’s idiotic.


38 posted on 08/15/2014 5:10:19 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We'll know when he's really hit bottom. They'll start referring to him as White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Define “truth.”

Trials are not about “justice.”

Trials are modern day versions of medieval trial by combat.

Trial by combat determined “guilt” or “innocence” on what we now consider which side engaged the strongest champion.

Modern trials determine “guilt” or “innocence” based on which side engages the cleverest lawyer.

In medieval times, people believed trial by combat was “just” because god would be on the side of truth.

In modern times, people believe trial by jury is “just” because “justice” will prevail. LOL. We’re just as stupid as we were a thousand years ago.


39 posted on 08/15/2014 5:14:10 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; P-Marlowe

We’re not talking about silence regarding your own role in an accident. We’re talking about silence while you know that someone could be dying just over yonder and you’re refusing to say anything to let people know someone is seriously injured.

In a situation such as that, it is letting someone die unnecessarily.


40 posted on 08/15/2014 5:15:12 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-306 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson