Actually his silence was used as evidence to support a higher charge, first degree manslaughter or second degree murder involving a reckless disregard for human life. It was the difference between a slap on the wrist and a long well deserved prison sentence.
There was no doubt that he was speeding and no doubt that he was drunk, but the silence following the accident was used as evidence to support the charge of reckless disregard for human life.
In this case his silence was construed as him saying to everyone around, “hey, I don’t give a damn about those people.” If he had shown some kind of remorse instead of just trying to hide the fact that he was drunk then it might have mitigated the charge down to involuntary manslaughter. Instead, because he showed indifference to his victims, his silence was highly relevant to the charge of reckless disregard for human life and as such the evidence should have been admitted and it properly was. In other words it was interpreted as saying “I don’t care about that little girl.”
I suspect that the mere fact that he was drunk shows a reckless disregard for human life, but sometimes a jury will only convict on that if the defendant is fall down drunk and in this case I believe the prosecution felt that additional evidence was necessary and fought for the inclusion of his callous silence as evidence of his state of mind.
I have yet to see a single poster give me a valid constitutional argument for his silence prior to being given his Miranda warning as violative of the original intent of the first amendment. It was evidence of his behavior and his mental state. It was the nail in the coffin to prove that he really had no concern for either his possible victims while driving the car drunk, or the actual victims that he killed and maimed.
Amazingly I suspect that if this thread were over on DU or some liberal site, that I would get the same arguments from the liberal posters over there that I have been getting from the Conservatives here, i.e., that this man’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS were violated by the evil prosecutors.
What a bunch of malarkey. He violated some 8 year old girl’s right to life. He should not be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether his silence was the exercise of some right or an attempt to shield himself from the consequences of his actions. His silence in this case spoke volumes about his mental state at the time of the accident. You don’t incriminate yourself when you show compassion for the dying victims in a car wreck that you caused. However it is clear that you do incriminate yourself when you callously ignore their plight and think only of yourself and button your lip to the point where you clearly show no concern for anyone other than yourself.
In the absence of the evidence of his silence, then he might have gotten away with a slap on the wrist rather than a well deserved prison sentence. The Fifth Amendment was never intended to prevent the introduction of evidence of callousness towards the victims of the crime. He may have been attempting to preserve his constitutional right to remain silent, but sometimes invoking your constitutional right says a lot about your state of mind and where it is relevant and in the interests of justice, it should be admitted.
Nor will you. Silence in the face of the law is not violative of the First Amendment -- which, by the by, we are not discussing -- nor is it violative of the Fifth Amendment.
However, and I believe OneWingedShark laid out the logical argument well, other posters have shown you that the introduction of this fact as presumptive of guilt IS violative of the Fifth Amendment.
That you claim to have not seen it, is not our problem -- nor is it our problem if you cannot (or will not) comprehend it.
And here I thought the following posts did raise Constitutional argument: #150, #163, #168.
It was evidence of his behavior and his mental state. It was the nail in the coffin to prove that he really had no concern for either his possible victims while driving the car drunk, or the actual victims that he killed and maimed.
So it [his silence] was then made to testify against him in a court of law.
This is violative of both the spirit and letter of the 5th amendment which declares: nor shall [a person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
.
Amazingly I suspect that if this thread were over on DU or some liberal site, that I would get the same arguments from the liberal posters over there that I have been getting from the Conservatives here, i.e., that this man’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS were violated by the evil prosecutors.
This is because they have a drive for Justice, granted it is oft twisted to evil ends, but the point is that the seed of it, a desire for Justice, remains.
What a bunch of malarkey. He violated some 8 year old girl’s right to life. He should not be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether his silence was the exercise of some right or an attempt to shield himself from the consequences of his actions.
Bullshit!
The seriousness of the charge
is not grounds to shred the Constitution's guarantees!
In fact, it is all the more reason to ensure that the guarantees are upheld!
If the Constitution only applies when convenient, then it is absolutely worthless — its whole purpose is to be inconvenient to government so as to ensure that rights are honored.
Do you remember Waco, TX?
Do you remember how, when questions of the appropriateness and lawfulness of the government's actions came up, they trotted out charges of pedophilia?
Do you remember that the whole incident sprang from a taxation issue/dispute with the ATF, which could have and should should have been resolved in civil court w/o the need for armed confrontation?
Do you remember that David Koresh walked into town nearly every day and could have thus been apprehended easily and w/o forcing a confrontation?
His silence in this case spoke volumes about his mental state at the time of the accident.
Really?
You categorically deny that someone could hold their peace because nothing they say could ever make things better?
Or that any such thing said would be wholly inadequate to assuage the grief of the bereaved?
You don’t incriminate yourself when you show compassion for the dying victims in a car wreck that you caused.
But you do when you keep yourself from speaking?
I wasn't aware that funerals had so many incriminating moments, as a moment of silence
is fairly common therein.
Thank you for illuminating the pure simplicity of human motivation and mindset, I feel so enlightened now! [/sarc]
However it is clear that you do incriminate yourself when you callously ignore their plight and think only of yourself and button your lip to the point where you clearly show no concern for anyone other than yourself.
Ah, so now prioritizing one's own life because it is one's own is guilt?
I had no idea you had such progressive leanings!
Moreover, by bringing this assertion you accuse the man's own character; would you allow him to mount a defense introducing days and days of volunteer work into evidence? No, because it is not germane to the case — yet on this very subject you ascribe to him a generally bad character and use that to convict him.
Reprehensible.
Violative of the spirit of the 6th Amendment.
Violative of the text of the 5th Amendment.