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 ...
We are 100% the Soviet Union at this point. Probably have been, since the 1990's.
Then the point of Miranda would be........? This is almost amusing, it flies not only in the face of Miranda, but also the 5th amendment.
'Silence is the ultimate indicator of guilt, and anyone who is silent, will be deemed guilty of the new crime, "Concealment of the Truth, Aggravated, in the First Degree." '
While the system flops over from a Representative Democracy with some human rights, to a Tyranny with no human rights, there will occasionally be a few logical contradictions like these. Don’t worry; they will get them all straightened out. Of course, we won’t live to SEE it, but they will.
Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I guess the next step is to determine that silence is an indication of guilt even if you aren't being considered suspect in any crime.
I am not surprised the SCOTUS will hear the case....the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let this “silence as guilt” into evidence and hopefully the court will throw out this ruling...
It is the SCOTUS job to clean up lower courts screwed up rulings...
Let’s hope they don’t muddy the waters on the 5 th amendment
No offense, just an observation.
Prosecute POSOTUS (Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc., etc.) and 535 in congress.
TREASON - in real-time, pre-meditated, in-your-face, unquestioned, abetted, unchecked, continuous, ongoing...
We are being triangulated by TOTALITARIANS. Check$ and Balance$.
Thanks for posting, Laz.
Only a lawyer could even come up with this position.
Before the Fall, I don't know if God needed courts in heaven, but if He did, you know what Satan's profession was.
You only have the right to remain silent after the LEO reads you that right? Hahahahahah! This is rich. If I am going to be treated as guilty... gosh... maybe I ought to at least do something... I got it... lets get drunk and take a Rigid pipe citter and deadhead some parking meters.
“Then the point of Miranda would be........? This is almost amusing, it flies not only in the face of Miranda, but also the 5th amendment.”
Yeah, it would be amusing if Roberts had not taken a dive on Obama Care. Who’s to say which way this guy will go in the future. He wouldn’t be the first Supreme to turn after be selected.
Nossir. There is guilty, when WE are silent, and then there is innocent, when OBAMA is silent. The quicker you understand that, the fewer of your family members need to die!
It is common sense to not talk to police, except in consultation with your attorney, if there is any possibility that the police are looking at charging you with anything.
The 5th Amendment was always kind of silly anyway, right?
“observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken, Seidman wrote. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”
Louis M Seidman
Constitutional Law Professor
If you refuse to incriminate yourself, you are guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!!!!
....The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again Pilate asked him, Arent you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.
5 But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.
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.
The British also accept the totality of the evidence.
In American courts, the jury could see a video of a man committing murder but if the defense proves he didnt receive his Miranda rights, the judge will dismiss the case.
Only if statements by the accused are part of the evidence in the trial. Failure to Mirandize results in suppression of evidence. If the ONLY evidence is a confession, then the case disappears along with the evidence. But, you postulated an independent video, and that evidence isn't suppressed on account of the accused giving a confession before being told he has the right to remain silent.
I know you are being facetious, but there is a strong element of truth in your joke. "Satan" means (roughly) "One who accuses" and in ancient Hebrew theology Satan was like a prosecuting attorney. If you look at the story of Job (without the interpretations and connotations that come from a Christian world-view) you can see that the Hebrews saw Satan as the angel tasked with bringing man's faults before God. Only later did that name become associated with the fallen angel/ultimate source of worldly evil in Judaic tradition.
So yes, Satan was (loosely) a lawyer and prosecutor by trade...
The Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations.
So, Democrats, by overthrowing the Fifth Amendment and the right of no self-incrimination, would essentially be condoning a return to torture and forced confessions -- the very thing they used to beat Bush over the head with for eight years.
Hypocrisy, thy name is "Democrat."
I am glad you did bring it up as an example of over extentions of the law as it allowed me to vent on this subject. Over the past 30 or so years, many of our rights have been diminished, slowly at first, but once the trend began to limit or remove rights, the speed at which they are being eroded has accelerated. Whoa to those who think they are safer as they remove their legal protections. Like the proverbial frog in the heating water in a pot, we will be boiled in our lust for ultimate security or enforcement of laws sans legal protections.
Same as for the President.
The problem the British version forestalls is concocting an alibi in connivance with friends and relatives. If the cops ask you where you were last night, and in fact you were burglaring Mrs. Sweeney’s home, and you say, “playing pinochle with my cousin”, the cops can interrogate your cousin before the two of you confer to concoct an alibi. If you clam up when initially interviewed, and later rely on the pinochle alibi, a jury is entitled, in the British system, to doubt the veracity of the alibi.
Law enforcement officials have broad immunity from liability for unsuccessful prosecution for obvious reasons. The immunity does not apply to malicious prosecutions, where they know the defendant to be innocent. As a practical matter, protestations of innocence by the accused have very little probative value.
Well, look: we're not all waiting in line at the only (government-run) department store to buy shoes. Yet.
I suppose Progressives can't be expected to achieve all their goals at once.
But perhaps after a few more years of Obamacare, increasingly draconian environmental regulations, higher business taxes, subservience to UN treaties, and forced unionization, we can all look forward to the grand re-opening of "GUM" in Obama Square (formerly known as Times Square) after the ball drops in 2017.