June 17, 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent

[sailingaway]

WASHINGTON, DC —In a blow to the fundamental right of citizens to remain silent, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. In a 5-4 decision in Salinas v. Texas, the Court upheld the conviction of Genovevo Salinas, who was found guilty of homicide after prosecutors argued that Salinas’ silence during a police interview prior to his arrest was a “very important piece of evidence” and that only a guilty person would have remained silent when questioned about his connection to a crime. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that Salinas “was required to assert the privilege in order to benefit from it,” even though a person questioned while under arrest could not have his silence used against him. The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, arguing that a person’s refusal to answer police questions, even before arrest and before Miranda warnings are given, does not indicate guilt in light of the well-known “right to remain silent,” and exclusion of evidence of silence is in keeping with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “[n]o person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Salinas v. Texas is available at https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/us_supreme_court_delivers_blow_to_fifth_amendment_ right_to_remain_silent_du

http://www.dailypaul.com/289451/us-supreme-court-delivers-blow-to-fifth-amendment-right-to-remain-silent-during-police-questioning

[TonySutton]

The logic escapes me that you have to assert a right guaranteed by the Constitution, wtf am I missing?

[Carson]

So basically they feel you MUST sacrifice your right to silence to have a right to silence.

There's yourself some real brainy ...what's the words?

[liberty2897]

what's the words?

fuckery

[better-dead-than-fed]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_1p24.pdf

[DamianTV]

Again, they assert that we have NO rights what so ever.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The Fifth Amendment ... a witness ... If ... he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been "compelled" within the meaning of the Amendment.

United States v. Monia, 317 US 424 - Supreme Court 1943 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4127636308411817824)

[James Madison]

Just further ramifications from Marbury vs. Madison. Can we just get rid of the Supreme Court?

[mrsat_98]

The logic escapes me that you have to assert a right guaranteed by the Constitution, wtf am I missing?

The intelligence of the tax feeder rates near the same as its shoe size, it doesn't get it unless you tell it. Dehumanization intended.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Just further ramifications from Marbury vs. Madison. Can we just get rid of the Supreme Court?

I do not see this as a ramification of Marbury vs. Madison, since the court here is not asserting that any law is unconstitutional. I see this as the court merely exercising their power under Article III (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html).

Under Article V (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), the Self-Incrimination Clause could be Amended to clarify that its right applies even without explicit invocation. Article V is always available as a check on unwanted Supreme Court opinions.

[phill4paul]

Again, they assert that we have NO rights what so ever.

No, no, according to Scalia you have rights. They just "are not unlimited."

un·al·ien·a·ble (n-ly-n-bl, -l--)
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away

and these fuck-twits are the guardians of the "word of law?"

Secession. That is the only peaceful end. Just let me go my own way. Other than that....


Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

[James Madison]

I do not see this as a ramification of Marbury vs. Madison, since the court here is not asserting that any law is unconstitutional. I see this as the court merely exercising their power under Article III (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html).

Under Article V (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), the Self-Incrimination Clause could be Amended to clarify that its right applies even without explicit invocation. Article V is always available as a check on unwanted Supreme Court opinions.

Without the foundation of Marbury vs. Madison can you imagine a Supreme Court with the balls to make a ruling like this? The damages aren't just from asserting a law is unconstitutional. Give men that much power and other goodies like this start to crop up.

[sailingaway]

So basically they feel you MUST sacrifice your right to silence to have a right to silence.

There's yourself some real brainy ...what's the words?

and doesn't the warning exist in case you don't KNOW you have the right to remain silent?

What if you don't KNOW you have to assert it?

[TheTexan]

I suppose if you also want to use your 1st amendment rights, you'll need to state that up front

[better-dead-than-fed]

and doesn't the warning exist in case you don't KNOW you have the right to remain silent?

What if you don't KNOW you have to assert it?

Miranda (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6386252699535531764) was intended to protect against "the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings". The witness in today's case was not in custody, so the court discounted Miranda. I am just the messenger; your logic makes more sense than the court's rulings, imho.