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

To: P-Marlowe

Okay, but you’re reasoning that there is only one reason why he would remain silent. Is there only one reason why he would remain silent? No.

He could just as easily have remained silent because he felt terrible about what he had done and surmised there was absolutely nothing he could do to undue the damage he had done.

He could have thought that saying he was sorry might actually hurt the parents more, because it would have sounded self-serving.

Perhaps there’s additional information that shows callous. I’m not sure.

It appears I’m trying to defend this guy. I’m actually trying to run interference on where this might lead.

If it’s only frame of mind, it’s not quite so dangerous. I do think silence is open to interpretation. It’s subjective what it really means IMO.


123 posted on 08/15/2014 8:47:22 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 118 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne; xzins
I do think silence is open to interpretation. It’s subjective what it really means IMO.

It is open to interpretation. That is why we have juries. So they can weigh the evidence and hopefully come to a just verdict. However when relevant evidence is withheld from the jury you can't expect them to come to a just verdict.

In this case the jury was asked to determine whether or not the defendant was acting with a callous disregard for human life when he was driving drunk and speeding and killed a little girl. The defendant was arguing that he was not acting in such a manner but he never took the stand to testify as to what his state of mind was. Instead he hid behind his silence.

So the question is, in this case, where the issue is the defendant's state of mind, would it be relevant to show that even before he was given his worthless Miranda warning he had zipped his mouth and was refusing to even inquire as to the condition of the kid he just killed or the other victims in the car?

In other words should the jury be told about his demeanor at the scene? Should that evidence include the fact that he didn't seem to care about anyone other than himself and that he was trying to protect himself from incrimination rather than concerning himself with the human damage he had inflicted?

Would you have kept this information from the jury if you were the judge?

127 posted on 08/15/2014 9:05:24 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

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