So you have to be told you have a right in order to invoke it? This makes absolutely no sense. If he’s in custody and subjected to interrogation, he has the right to remain silent and Miranda v. Arizona requires the police to inform the accused of the right to remain silent. If they don’t advise him of the right, they can’t use any statements made. Now they say that if you don’t make a statement, they can use that.
I’d have to read the whole opinion, but this does not square logically.
If you are going to invoke your right to remain silent, STFU from the very beginning.
They’re arguing that because he was talking to police BEFORE he clammed up about a shotgun matching up to ballistics, he waived his right. Apparently one must immediately claim the right before one can use it which freaking ridiculous.
Rights are extant. The 5th amendment is an affirmation of the right, meaning it acknowledges that it exists. No amount of legal or political wrangling can make it such that I can’t choose to shut my mouth at any time: before, during, or after questioning.
This is just retarded. The decline has been especially precipitous as of late. Not sure what the Obama admin is threatening SCOTUS with, but it’s been particularly bad.
There are lots of cases where people aren’t read their miranda rights. It’s been how cases have been tossed on technicalities.
“So you have to be told you have a right in order to invoke it? “
No; I think that is not a good reading of what they said.
At the time of the police questioning at issue, during the initial investigation and years before the man’s arrest and before the man who became a suspect. At that earlier time and period, when talking to the police, and was not yet a suspect, (1) the police had not yet “Mirandized” the man and [because he wasn’t a suspect or under arrest - not enough evidence)(2) the man had at that time made no demand that he would keep silent.
It was during that period of discussion with the man that he offered no answer to one of the questions.
As he was not a suspect at that time, none of the conversation was possibly (??) under the man’s assumption that he needed to, or the police assumption that they needed Mirandize him to, “keep silent”.
So, the “silence” - the non-answer, in THAT particular period of communication, before the man was believed to be a suspect, was considered to be NOT under the mandate covered by a SUSPECT’S right to remain silent or the mandate to Mirandize someone who IS a suspect.
The court allowed THAT conversation, before he was a suspect, including his non-answer, into the trial.
NOW THEN, if the man really was guilty and KNEW, way back then, he could be found to be a suspect he could have immediately invoked his right to remain silent, period, and never said a thing.
He was probably be too smart by half; thinking he could evade becoming a suspect by NOT appearing so in refusing to talk. But, his conversation - outside of the police finding him to be a suspect came back against him.
If you know your guilty, whether the police do or not, say nothing.