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 wanna see this apply to 0bama and Holder, Napolitano and Reid.
So much for all the Foghorn Leghorn honking about Texas being some sort of last redoubt for constitutional conservatives.
I’d feel a lot more comfortable if you had the presumption of innocent motives WHENEVER you decided to clam up. Let’s say you decide to be Chatty Cathy, but suddenly remember that YouTube video.... (no, not THAT one, in THAT one she merely forgot to wear her clothes, okay?)... the OTHER video, the YouTube video that states saying anything to a cop is suicide, innocent or guilty.