Ya, I'd hit it.
(I have a bad reputation to keep, here....) :)
Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
I have learned not to doubt you, but I would like to see this ruling.
“What good is a Miranda protection if his silence prior to being advised of it can be used as evidence of guilt?”
Do you think that a person that is drunk and plows into a car at a high rate of speed should walk because the prosecution noted in his trial that he was silent prior to having his rights read?
Exactly, the determination of guilt should be based upon facts that occurred prior to and during the accident. What happened afterwards, unless it is something akin to spoliation of evidence, has any bearing on whether he was acting with an indifference toward human life. Sure sounds like a poor decision, but that’s what I’ve come to expect from the Cal Sups over the last 20 years.
Although this was a partial-silence case. He had done a lot of incriminating talk already, and clammed up at a particular point. That's a little different than this.
A pure silence used against you is no 'Great Leap Forward', to use my Communist friend's terminology, but this is not that.
I expect that the observation of a suspects pure silence will be admissible as proof of guilt soon enough.
Well, you could find me innocent by reason of insane rage.
Thanks for the post. Interesting.
If the man was drunk and drove at 67 in a 35, that should be sufficient proof of ‘depraved indifference to human life’. The silence before or after should be immaterial. If it was ruled as exculpatory, the trial should have been overturned as a mistrial (presumably by a higher court) and the man should have been tried again.
I might just have done that. :)
Frankly I’m okay with him being convicted. I do care if his silence prior to Mirandizing is ruled to be admissible as evidence of wrong-doing. If it is ruled to be admissible, and did not play into this trial’s outcome, it’s still wrong and a big deal.
Not unless that figured into the verdict. If it did, it should be subject to Constitutional challenge.
Weird...does the mean, you have NO rights until they say, ok..."now you have rights"...
Well...isn't that sweet of them....
Ya, I'd hit it.
(I have a bad reputation to keep, here....) :)
Think about that. Neighbor accuses you of beheading his wayward daughter who has turned to drugs and prostitution and you keep silent. Muslim prosecutor states that your silence proves that you beheaded his daughter.
“Not unless that figured into the verdict. If it did, it should be subject to Constitutional challenge.”
It may have figured in the verdict but most likely it was not a deciding factor.
“Exactly, the determination of guilt should be based upon facts that occurred prior to and during the accident. “
I think the facts that he was drunk and killed someone at over twice the speed limit had a little bearing in his conviction.
Red Herring.
Probably not...
>> The US Supreme Court already ruled on this and said we no longer enjoy the 5th Amendment, that silence can be used against you.
>
> I have learned not to doubt you, but I would like to see this ruling.
I, too, would like a citable reference.
This is the model that they want.
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.