Supreme Court On Right To Remain Silent [Pic+]

Submitted by: muert 3 years ago

What you don"t say can be used against you.
There are 25 comments:
Male 2,675
That`s stupid. You don`t have the right to remain silent only after they tell you you do, you have it, period, all the time. They are also not required to read you your rights (eg: Hollywood: if they don`t, the guy that just shot up heroin while slaughtering nuns in the middle of the policeman`s ball ... has to be set free ... nuhuh).
0
Reply
Male 1,983
The ONLY two things you should EVER say to a police officer are:
1] Am I free to go?
2] I want a lawyer.

Don`t even help police! If you provide information as a witness, you will eventually be accused of committing the crime since you obviously know so much about it.

F[u]ck the police. Slam the door in their faces.
They`ll get a warrant if they have a valid reason to talk with you.
0
Reply
Male 100
Bottom line either answer the questions the cops ask you or shut up and hire a lawyer. If I remember correctly, you CAN agree to answer questions and at any point ask for an attorney but then you have to shut up! If you keep on talking while you wait for them to show up then anything you say is admissible.

However, he wasn`t even under arrest! I would ask "Am I under arrest? If I`m not, I would like to leave right now please." At which point they can either mirandize me (and I then invoke my right to remain silent AND obtain legal counsel) or they let me go.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
Your reasoning is impeccable blackcatseye. Please tell us again how sheep`s bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.
0
Reply
Female 685
This is why the police caution changed in England and Wales in 1994, so all you are proving is that yet AGAIN, the US is at least a decade behind the rest of (sentient) humanity. And by the fuss you are all making on this page I can see you will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the same century as the rest of us, AGAIN. Get over yourselves and grow up.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Clarence Thomas has been demonstrating this philosophy from the bench to great effect for years now. He doesn`t say anything, his pilloried for the fact that he doesn`t say anything. So, ergo waffle-oh, non sequitur, e pluribus unum.
0
Reply
Male 3,842
[quote]No, LandoGriffin, you are not "as liberal as they come" if you think we don`t have rights until the police or prosecuting attorneys grant them to us. They are granted by the Constitution.[/quote]

When or where did I ever say otherwise? That is exactly what I said. Although required to read you your rights upon arrest (Miranda vs State of Arizona), you have the right to refrain from answering any questions that are self-incriminating (5th Amendment) - the point here is that the police will investigate anything you remain silent about, if you are answering the rest of their questions openly. The evidence gathered in that investigation is perfectly legal.

The Miranda ruling was because Miranda believed he HAD to answer the questions, not knowing he had a 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. That has NOTHING to do with this case where the man answered some questions, not others, before being read his rights.
0
Reply
Male 37,253
It`s a complex case, but I disagree with the Supremes on this.

For it to be used in court? Shouldn`t Miranda have been read for ANY evidence used in court? Spoken or silent, I thought if it came before your rights were read it would get tossed...
(Overly simplified, I know, but close!)

Just because you chose to answer SOME questions doesn`t mean your right to refuse is voided...
0
Reply
Male 359
My thinking is silence should be a clue, but not usable as evidence.
0
Reply
Male 140
This case is a shame. It really opens doors to degradation of other clauses within the bill of rights. I can imagine the next prosecutor arguing, "well, he/she didn`t specifically say 4th amendment unlawful search when the police busted down his door, so the privilege does not apply."
0
Reply
Female 6,381
I like how this is a deeper legal question than it first appears. Good debate topic for legal students!
0
Reply
Male 300
The right to remain silent is to protect you from wrongful prosecution. It in no way prevents you from the scope of the law or its sentence. If someone falsely accuses you of a misdeed your very words can and will be used against you when you try to defend yourself. It was not intended as an escape from penalty clause.
0
Reply
Male 38,243

So silence = guilt now?
Are the cops just too lazy to fake evidence now?
0
Reply
Female 1,540
Good ol` Texas. If they want you guilty then you don`t stand a chance.
0
Reply
Male 38,243

[quote]"was answering some questions — therefore not invoking his right to silence — "[/quote]
It is not "all or nothing" you can answer anything you choose, and not answer other questions based on the 5th Amendment. But yes, we can infer anything we want from your silence.

Like in the OJ Simpson trial when Rick Furman refused to answer "did you plant evidence". I take his silence to imply that he has planted evidence, otherwise why wouldn`t he answer? But that is an impression, not evidence.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Bullcrap.

It should be, did you do it, yes or no. No if no, yes if yes, silent if yes.
0
Reply
Male 840
No, LandoGriffin, you are not "as liberal as they come" if you think we don`t have rights until the police or prosecuting attorneys grant them to us. They are granted by the Constitution. These political Supreme Court Justices are a joke. I agree with deyv87.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I have always disagreed with people withholding information to protect themselves when they are guilty, so I approve of this.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
Face palm time. By this logic I only have the right to free speech if some bureaucrat informs me that I do.
0
Reply
Male 3,318
"Ugh... just because you`re not told your rights doesn`t mean you don`t have them. That`s why they`re rights, not privileges. When someone`s Mirandized, that`s supposed to inform them of their rights, not magically give them the rights. This is just one more layer on the "we`re drated" sandwich that is the US legal system."

He wasn`t read his rights when he started answering questions, and then stopped at the question about the shotgun. That silence is what they used against him. The courts found that he had/has the right to silence, but because he didn`t invoke it, he didn`t exercise it.

No one is taking anything away from anyone. They are just saying that if you want to remain silent, you have to say you`re invoking your 5th amendment right to do so.
0
Reply
Male 302
Ugh... just because you`re not told your rights doesn`t mean you don`t have them. That`s why they`re rights, not privileges. When someone`s Mirandized, that`s supposed to inform them of their rights, not magically give them the rights. This is just one more layer on the "we`re drated" sandwich that is the US legal system.
0
Reply
Male 14,792
There`s no change in my understanding of the law. It`s worse in Britain though, you get no Miranda Rights. In Hong Kong, the law dates from before the British ruling, so you`re better off, but it`s better (essential) to get lawyered up.
0
Reply
Male 3,842
The only surprise here is that the Supreme Court was split 5-4. I`m as liberal as they come but it seems obvious to me that if you answer some questions then shut up about a critical question, it suggests that is a line of investigation that the police should investigate further. Surprised the Supreme Court didn`t rule 9-0
0
Reply
Male 1,059
You can`t have it both ways. It used to be that people had to know their own rights and police were not required to "Mirandize" people when they arrested them. When the Miranda decision came down, it resulted in far fewer convictions because people who didn`t know they had the right to remain silent had to be told that they did. Now, the reading of the Miranda rights mark the moment at which the rights actually kick in. Stupid? Yes, of course it is. But the alternative is to drop the stupidity of having to read the rights and have the rights kick in immediately instead (assuming the suspect knows his rights and exercises them). So it`s a cake or eat it too situation - either we have stupid rulings like this or we drop the whole stupid Mirandizing thing altogether, the latter of which would be my preference.
0
Reply
Male 359
Link: Supreme Court On Right To Remain Silent [Pic+] [Rate Link] - What you don`t say can be used against you.
0
Reply