Similar but I’m not sure it’s the exact same.
Failure to answer questions which did not in and of themselves require a miranda warning and failure to make extemporaneous comments/questions someone else thinks you should make in a given situation are not necessarily equivalent, although I can imagine the majority opinion likely leaned on this as precedent.
However, thanks for the info. I always appreciate learning something new.
And ... I trust Laz .. so if Laz trusts you - then you are solid in my book.
“And ... I trust Laz .. so if Laz trusts you - then you are solid in my book.”
Thanks!
What the USSC said was that if your silence can be deemed useful they can use it. There really wasn’t any limit to the logical course that had to be taken before your silence could be used. They simply said that if you don’t in some way exercise your right to silence then your silence at any time can be used against you.
In the court case it was a guy that was talking but then refused to answer the specific question of quilt so his silence could then be stated as, “Well, he was talking but he wouldn’t answer if he did it, and we take that as an admission of guilt, and so should you, the jury.”
As another poster put it, just what magical incantation are we required to say before our silence, our 5th Amendment right, is not used against us?