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.
Revise the Miranda statement and it'll all be fine. Just include :
. . . and anything you don't say or haven't said can and will be used against you
/sarc if some need it
1. He plowed into a car at a high speed while drunk killing a person.
2. He was convicted and got off on a ‘constitutional technicality.
3. This decision reversed the previous reversal.
He was NOT convicted on his silence.
“What good is a Miranda protection if his silence prior to being advised of it can be used as evidence of guilt?”
Do you think that a person that is drunk and plows into a car at a high rate of speed should walk because the prosecution noted in his trial that he was silent prior to having his rights read?
Your are with good company ....
” Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan.”