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.
No offense, just an observation.
“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
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.
The question is not whether you have the right to remain silent. You have that right.
The question under consideration is whether or not the courts can accept as evidence of guilt the silence of someone who is not under arrest, is voluntarily answering questions, and then suddenly stops answering questions.
In this case, Texas was able to get the defendant’s sudden silence introduced as evidence. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals later said that federal courts are split as to whether or not “pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt.”
SCOTUS must resolve this question so federal courts are not applying the law unevenly.
I don’t think the right to remain silent necessarily implies that one’s silence cannot be used against him. The basis for the right to remain silent is protection against forcing one to testify against himself. Keeping silent protects that right. That is all that is required.
There is much simpler wording in the 2nd Amendment, and yet it gets trampled upon in thousands of ways.
Why anyone would think other civil rights protections would be sacrosanct is a mystery.