SCOTUS to consider if silence can be used as evidence of guilt

[rambone]

No more right to remain silent?

Supreme Court to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt | Reuters

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial.

 

[Rookie]

It's pathetic that this would be even considered.

 

[Pinchaser]

Even with the split in today's SCOTUS, I would expect a 9-0 decision.

 

[Tinner666]

There goes the 5th.....

 

[rw496]

Kind of an interesting twist since it was before being arrested or read Miranda. Mentioning post Miranda silence is a big no-no.

 

[jdorp]

As long as we are trampling the constitution why would we stop with the second amendment?

 

[mrjarrell]

Scalia will side with the boys in blue and the prosecutors on this one. The rest of his side are a toss up, but it won't surprise me to see them follow his lead.

 

[silverspoon]

What's a person to do. You vote Republican/conservative to protect your Second Amendment rights and then your 4th and 5th Amendments get trashed. You vote Democrat/Liberal to protect your 4th and 5th Amendments and your 2nd Amendment gets trashed. Why can't these sum*****es just be American and do what they swore they would do, protect every single one of those Amendments?

 

[rambone]

Kind of an interesting twist since it was before being arrested or read Miranda. Mentioning post Miranda silence is a big no-no.

If silence is a right, and it certainly is, then it should not matter at which point of the encounter the questioning took place.

 

[csnoski]

After reading the article, it doesn't really scare me that much. The guy was convicted in part because of his silence. They have been appealing his conviction and losing, so now SCOTUS must rule. I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if they did not rule that no one can be compelled to speak.

Heck, after seeing several videos posted here about dealing with the law, I am convinced I would not say a word to the police other than ":am I being detained" and "I want a ,lawyer"!

 

[griffin]

Kind of an interesting twist since it was before being arrested or read Miranda. Mentioning post Miranda silence is a big no-no.

That is immaterial. Miranda doesn't do anything for you. You always have your 5th Amendment rights. Miranda just reminds you of your existing right. It doesn't magically change anything.

 

[Llamaguy]

That is immaterial. Miranda doesn't do anything for you. You always have your 5th Amendment rights. Miranda just reminds you of your existing right. It doesn't magically change anything.

Exactly. If I remember Miranda was not informed of his rights and didn't know he could shut his trap.

 

[buckstopshere]

I'm pleading the 5th on this one

 

[96firephoenix]

what the hell ever happened to "you have the right to remain silent?" I know that not exactly BOR, but the Miranda case pretty well settled that part of any arrest/questioning.

 

[jbombelli]

After reading the article, it doesn't really scare me that much. The guy was convicted in part because of his silence. They have been appealing his conviction and losing, so now SCOTUS must rule. I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if they did not rule that no one can be compelled to speak.

Heck, after seeing several videos posted here about dealing with the law, I am convinced I would not say a word to the police other than ":am I being detained" and "I want a ,lawyer"!

That doesn't scare you?

 

[printcraft]

I'm pleading the 5th on this one

I'm sorry, that's not a right they want to recognize anymore.

 

[cobber]

There goes the 5th.....

What the heck say the liberals. There are eight more to protect you.


This doesn't really seem to be a case of a pre-custodial interrogation.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Everyone wants to talk about not having a living constitution, but are angry when the justices go with the intent in all cases, not just the second amendment case. The 5th Amendment was meant to prohibit compulsory testimony at trial, not Miranda. You can't have it both ways, you either want to go with the original intent or with the living constitution, which is it?

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I am reading this a bit different, so lawyers please correct me if I am error.

What is being argued is NOT whether he had the right to remain silent, but rather that when he did shut up being used against him as evidence of guilt.

So, you are on a jury. The prosecutor introduces evidence that when the suspect was asked a question that could lead to him/her looking guilty THEN he/she remained silent. Look, see: only a guilty person would shut up here - therefore it is evidence and you should convict.

I will have to think about this. Let us presume we are on a jury and video evidence of the defendants interrogation is being viewed. The defendant cooperates right up to the point when asked a question that could seriously incriminate him/her. At this point in the video the suspect exercises their 5A. Can we on the jury not judge how the person appeared? There are so much subtleties with body language, facial expression, and general attitude that cannot be conveyed by a witness. IF it is reasonable for us to watch a video such as this and use our thoughts to form a conclusion could we not be told when the suspect exercised 5A?

I will need to think about it.

Regards,

Doug

 

[hornadylnl]

To All,

I am reading this a bit different, so lawyers please correct me if I am error.

What is being argued is NOT whether he had the right to remain silent, but rather that when he did shut up being used against him as evidence of guilt.

So, you are on a jury. The prosecutor introduces evidence that when the suspect was asked a question that could lead to him/her looking guilty THEN he/she remained silent. Look, see: only a guilty person would shut up here - therefore it is evidence and you should convict.

I will have to think about this. Let us presume we are on a jury and video evidence of the defendants interrogation is being viewed. The defendant cooperates right up to the point when asked a question that could seriously incriminate him/her. At this point in the video the suspect exercises their 5A. Can we on the jury not judge how the person appeared? There are so much subtleties with body language, facial expression, and general attitude that cannot be conveyed by a witness. IF it is reasonable for us to watch a video such as this and use our thoughts to form a conclusion could we not be told when the suspect exercised 5A?

I will need to think about it.

Regards,

Doug

It all comes down to innocent until proven guilty. It's the state's duty to prove guilt. How is not talking evidence of anything?