Skip to comments.Supreme Court to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt
Posted on 01/20/2013 6:08:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
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. Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
It was kinda a pain in the ass, really. Look, if you know something, we have a right to know it to. If we can waterboard you into a confession, won't the truth be better served?
America, I love this free country, rich in the tradition of honoring human rights. You now have a new right: The right to testify against yourself via a little 'motivating' waterboarding!
cop: “strangely enough, no... he was not silent. he just kept repeating the Constitution and the bill of rights, which he seems to have memorized.”
which is the same as:
nazi/commie: “we couldn’t get anything out of him... he kept repeating his name, rank, and serial number.”
Now you can be convicted on the strength of what you DON’T say?????? I went to sleep last night in a declining America and woke up this morning in Wonderland!
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
There is clearly a certain amount of commonsense in the British version. It you concoct an innocent account of what one its face appears to suspicious conduct or circumstances after the event, your failure to offer this explanation at the time "may harm your defence".
Nossir. You went to sleep last night in the Soviet Socialist States of America, and you woke up in the Soviet Socialist States of America (only you had a little more proof).
This must be from some kind of IRS matter where one is guilty till they prove they are innocent? So, taking this stupid court decision one step farther, the police go about asking people randomly if they have committed any violation of the law. Person refuses to answer therefore they are considered having committed a crime because they did not deny they did? “bring me in the usual suspects”.
There must be something missing from this story and if not it the conviction will be tossed. If the story is true on its face, the country is in a whole lot more trouble then even I think it is evidenced by the moves on the 2nd amendment now.
There you go quoting that pesky Constitution again. Remember under the current communist regime and their “justice” (ha ha ha) department, you are guilty until THEY decide you are not. Thus, building concentration camps around the country to house all the surfs.
You know, I would agree with this idea IF once you respond with a denial or an assertion you did not do the crime and were yet prosecuted, unsucessfully for it, you could sue, personally, all the people in the prosecution team who did not listen to your protestations of innocense.
The American version to come shortly:
"You the right to remain silent, however, silence will be introduced in court as a clear indicator of guilt. Anything you say will be used against you in court, and anything you do not say, will count against you much more harshly; You have the right to consult with an attorney, however, only guilty people need a lawyer, so if you request one, this is certain to convince a judge and jury of your guilt. If you ask for an attorney, we also have the right to beat you until you stop asking for an attorney. Oh, did we mention, we know where your family lives? Yes, they have been arrested as well, and your children have been placed in a cell with child molesters. You probably want to confess this crime before the kids are raped to death, right?"
If there isn't a unanimous decision on this one, we should consider removal of some judges. How is that done at the Supreme Court level?
And suppose you are a confused elderly man/woman suffering from dementia, remembering from your youth that you have a right to be silent, and so you take it so as not to be confused. The police observe your condition and take advantage of your confusion and dismay at being taken in for questioning to talk you into a confession.
Let’s not give them an inch-—they’ll take a mile.
Note though, that confiscation of property can be done on probable cause, because confiscation of property isn't a form of punishment.
Bump for the Cool Hand Luke reference.
Purely a theoretical construct, of ZERO practical value.
I believe Supreme Court judges can be impeached and removed from office on conviction.
Like that’s ever going to happen in the modern era.
I missed the confiscation part. The seizure laws have been extended so far to give the state the power to declare so many things are part of the crime to make private ownership of property meaningless...it is almost the same as seizure by fiat. The only thing left to do is to just rent everything because the police state generally will not seize property owned by a bank or leasing company.
Make one wonder what Alex Jones and and 1776’ers are waiting for.
I don't think there was an administrative seizure in this case, I brought it up sua sponte as another example of the law gone bonkers.
This is an issue even the low-information morons can figure out.