Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.
Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.
Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.
Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I’m not familiar with the facts of this case. Did the police not know someone was injured?
It's not that easy.
"How are the people in that car?"
"Which car is that?"
"The one over there."
"You mean the one you hit when you were speeding?"
"I didn't say that. You know, the other car."
...
Being forced to open your mouth to avoid being considered as wantonly indifferent to human life necessarily requires you to risk incriminating yourself.
We may now need to learn how to plead the Fifth along with Driver's Ed.
““You have the right to remain silent!”
Didn’t these fools ever watch Dragnet?”
Didn’t you read the story?
The overwhelming benefit of the Miranda warning was that it assured that the cops knew your rights and were aware of their obligation to respect them.
It's pretty hard to tell a person in one breath, "You have the right to remain silent" and then in the next breath tell them that if you don't speak you will be charged with a crime.
It's similarly difficult to tell a person one minute that "You have a right to an attorney before any questioning" and then insist that they answer your questions without the benefit of an attorney.
If you don't believe that cops have coerced confessions out of innocent people then you haven't been paying attention.
So the Government controls what Criminal Charges are to be brought against the Citizen.
The Government then controls what Evidence May be introduced in said Trial.
The Government controls and decides WHO can be a witness and what they can say, and who may Represent the defendant and their speech also.
The government then tells the JURY What their law means and that they cannot deviate regardless of the circumstance, Which is an Out and Out LIE, Jury Nullification has ALWAYS been the Safeguard the people had against Tyranny and has been used to nullify bad law throughout history
Why do we have trials anyway??
our rights predate the constitution. they come from God. the fed and state constitutions guarantee them, they are not the originators of those rights.
California has gone full-on Communist.
Saw California's conversion to a Stalinist State coming for two decades.
Well, duh--it's not "like" they're saying that, they are saying that.
As a full-on Communist Collective, California will find a way around it.
Hell, they just might set up checkpoints at the border and a Berlin Wall, and ignore the ruling altogether.
Under the ACLU interpretation of the constitution that would be a "FACT" which the jury should not be apprised of. Would you agree that the jury should be precluded from knowing that Mr. Tom held his tongue while a little girl was dying in front of him?
The prosecutors ASSUMED that this fact somehow demonstrated Tom’s guilt, when it did no such thing.
They argued it. The jury agreed with their argument. It is a logical conclusion to draw.
Someone who can’t distinguish between evidence and assumption, or who thinks that silence is “as good as a confession”, should be thrown off juries.
The jury is instructed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. If he was silent, they were free to draw whatever inference they could from that fact. It is relevant to his demeanor at the time of the accident and is hence, evidence of a guilty conscience.
I will ask you again. Should the jury have been prohibited from knowing this FACT? Or should it have come in as evidence?"
When you open your mouth without legal counsel, things you say in complete innocence can be twisted and used against you.
They cannot possibly be saying that. It would be saying, “We’ll abuse our office and commit fraud if necessary.” How could a court order everyone to be given a warning that the system is allowed to fraudulently convict you?
I sure hope you are not an attorney or in any way associated with the jurisprudence system.
Asking about the other parties condition could ALSO be introduced, as a 'guilty conscience' presumption of guilt.
Silence IS the correct behavior, ALL speaking should be done through an attorney.
California just nullified that.
It should have no bearing on the decision of the jury.
Yes I am an attorney.
Asking about the other parties condition could ALSO be introduced, as a 'guilty conscience' presumption of guilt.
In this case the issue was not being guilty of causing the crash, the issue was whether or not the defendant showed a callous disregard of life. In that case, had he asked about the condition of the people in the other car, it would have been evidence of having at least some concern for the lives of the other people. However his callous refusal to inquire as to their well being was quite relevant to his state of mind, which was the primary issue in the case.
BTW, Since when did the Miranda decision become the holy grail of constitutional conservatives?
How did the policeman not know there were injured parties in the other car?
Should the fact that he didn't bother to inquire as to the condition of the dying 8 year old have been withheld from the jury?
Read it before. Reread it. Doesn’t change my opinion one bit.
What good is a Miranda protection if his silence prior to being advised of it can be used as evidence of guilt? It completely invalidates the Miranda protection.
If he talks he may incriminate himself. If he doesn’t talk it can be used as evidence of guilt.
This won’t stand. It’s idiotic.
Define “truth.”
Trials are not about “justice.”
Trials are modern day versions of medieval trial by combat.
Trial by combat determined “guilt” or “innocence” on what we now consider which side engaged the strongest champion.
Modern trials determine “guilt” or “innocence” based on which side engages the cleverest lawyer.
In medieval times, people believed trial by combat was “just” because god would be on the side of truth.
In modern times, people believe trial by jury is “just” because “justice” will prevail. LOL. We’re just as stupid as we were a thousand years ago.
We’re not talking about silence regarding your own role in an accident. We’re talking about silence while you know that someone could be dying just over yonder and you’re refusing to say anything to let people know someone is seriously injured.
In a situation such as that, it is letting someone die unnecessarily.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.