SCOTUS 5th amend: don't talk to cops, fine, you might be guilty of murder

[aGameOfThrones]

Prosecutors can use a suspect’s silence during informal police questioning as evidence of guilt at a subsequent trial, the US Supreme Court said on Monday.

In a case with important implications for individuals at the early stages of a police investigation, the high court said that a suspect must verbally invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to prevent police and prosecutors from using any resulting silence and incriminating body language as evidence of guilt during a jury trial.

“The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; it does not establish an unqualified right to remain silent,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

“Before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, he was required to invoke it,” Justice Alito added in turning aside an appeal by a defendant convicted of murder in Texas.

The high court split 5 to 4 on the issue, with the court’s five-member conservative wing rejecting a claim to the Fifth Amendment privilege in the case under scrutiny and the four-member liberal wing supporting such a claim.

The issue arose in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was charged and convicted in the shooting death of two brothers in Texas in 1992.

During the initial stages of the police investigation, detectives conducted an informal interview with Mr. Salinas. He was not under arrest and police had not advised him of his right to remain silent or consult a lawyer.

Salinas readily answered all of the detectives’ questions – except one. After nearly an hour of questions and answers, one of the detectives asked him if the shotgun police had recovered from the Salinas house earlier that day would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder.

Salinas fell silent. He did not respond. One of the officers would later testify that Salinas “looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clinched his hands in his lap, began to tighten up.”

The detective asked some additional questions that Salinas answered. The only question Salinas declined to answer related to whether the shells found at the murder scene would match Salinas’ shotgun.

At his trial, the prosecutor presented testimony from the investigator about how Salinas had answered many questions by the police – but refused to answer one. The prosecutor told the jury in his closing that Salinas’ silence was evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

Salinas was convicted of the double killing and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-remain-silent-suspect-must-speak-005700241.html

[RickyJ]

It is a right, not a privilege. You don't have to ask for a right. These Judges are enemies of the Constitution, they should be removed from the bench and tried for treason.

[kcchiefs6465]

Remaining silent could be construed by jurors as a sign of guilt. (no matter how much they tell them not to take it into account) Even invoking the Fifth Amendment could sway some jurors to a guilty verdict. It is damned if you do, damned if you don't. My advice, not meaning shit as I am in no way a lawyer, would be to respectfully ask for your lawyer to be present or that you wish to seek counsel. A reason being something as simple as you do not understand the line of questioning or do not trust the officer to properly convey your statement. (recording equipment be damned.. and affirm as much)

They'll tell you that it can't be used against you but the recording can be shown (of your actions before requesting an attorney) and the conclusions will be drawn. (perhaps a competent lawyer can have the court cleared and 'evidence' struck) No matter how little you say though, or even saying nothing, a skilled prosecutor can and will use it against you. Simple statements can be manipulated and used against you. Blank stares or complete silence can be used to show a lack of 'remorse' or that you unfit in mind. There are many different subtle ways for a prosecutor to cast a view of you to the jury. Subtle words, voice inflection, or emotion can all sway a jury to side with them.

Again, I am not lawyer. I understand the system in the limited ways I was exposed to it and the people I've spoken with who have gone through it. Take my words as you will. The odds are stacked against the accused, that is for sure.

[aGameOfThrones]

"Qui tacet consentire"

[kcchiefs6465]

"Qui tacet consentire"
??

[buck000]

??

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Qui+tacet+consentire

[Elias Graves]

It was my understanding that the 5th is all or nothing. You either take it from the outset or not at all?
I remember the congressmen talking about that over Lois Lerner since she made a statement then said "I ain't talking." They claimed that once she opened her trap, she had waived her 5th amendment rights.

Either way, it's just another piece of the state's puzzle coming together.

[Elias Graves]

Oh, and cops are well trained in framing questions to get the answer they want. Your best bet is to always keep your mouth shut.
Name, rank and id number!

[otherone]

You are under no obligation to talk with police. This a ruse to have you incriminate yourself. In an "informal" police questioning, simply ask; "am I under arrest?" If the answer is "no", then you reply, "CYA!" If you are under arrest, then ask for an attorney.

[otherone]

It is much easier to bully a false confession out of someone interrogated than to use other methods of evidence collection. Now it's even easier, as intractable silence of the accused is almost as good as a confession.
All hail der Polizeistaat!

[better-dead-than-fed]

It was my understanding that the 5th is all or nothing. You either take it from the outset or not at all?
I remember the congressmen talking about that over Lois Lerner since she made a statement then said "I ain't talking." They claimed that once she opened her trap, she had waived her 5th amendment rights.

If a defendant chooses to testify in his own defense, the courts won't let him use the 5th to avoid cross-examination. During police interrogation, though, I think you can invoke 5th at any point.

[Elias Graves]

If a defendant chooses to testify in his own defense, the courts won't let him use the 5th to avoid cross-examination. During police interrogation, though, I think you can invoke 5th at any point.

Well, you could until yesterday.

[otherone]

Well, you could until yesterday.

I don't think you are understanding the ruling.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Well, you could until yesterday.

You still can, but instead of simply exercising your right to remain silent, you have to go through the ritual of announcing that you're remaining silent. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418471-June-17-2013-U-S-Supreme-Court-Delivers-Blow-to-Fifth-Amendment-Right-to-Remain-Silent&p=5081997&viewfull=1#post5081997

[Cleaner44]

As usual, the suspect made the mistake of talking to the cops. Had he kept his mouth shut for all of their questions he would have been better off. I don't know why he chose to answer almost all of their questions, but it helped convict him, regardless of his guilt or innocence.

Moral of the story:
Don't talk to cops!

[otherone]

LOL Miranda:

Anything you say or NOT SAY may be used against you in a court of law.

[Kodaddy]

It's been said many times. Do not talk to the police. Ever. At least not without an attorney present. If you start any dealings with the police this way, you will have some semblance of protection.

[erowe1]

Why should the right to remain silent mean that the fact that you remained silent can't be brought up in a trial?

[NationalAnarchist]

I'll take my chances with not saying anything. If you arrested cops only need to hear 5 words I have nothing to say. That's it.

[Sam I am]

Why should the right to remain silent mean that the fact that you remained silent can't be brought up in a trial?

If they're going to use your silence against you, than the "right to remain silent" is more or less empty.

The purpose of that part of the 5th amendment is to eliminate coerced confession, but if your silence is taken to imply confession, that's against the spirit of the law.

[erowe1]

If they're going to use your silence against you, than the "right to remain silent" is more or less empty.

I disagree. You may decide that silence is better than speaking. But that doesn't mean that a jury shouldn't know that.

Just like anything you say can be used against you, if you don't say anything at all, that can be too.

It's not like silence can ever prove you're guilty. But it could be circumstantial evidence that goes along with other evidence in the case.



The purpose of that part of the 5th amendment is to eliminate coerced confession, but if your silence is taken to imply confession, that's against the spirit of the law.

Silence is not a confession. But it's still something. I don't see why we should feel obligated to pretend that something that did happen didn't.

[erowe1]

I'm guessing that anybody who thinks a jury shouldn't be allowed to be told how someone behaved in a police interview also thinks they shouldn't be allowed to hear about evidence obtained against the 5th amendment. I don't agree with that either.

[Brian4Liberty]

Why should the right to remain silent mean that the fact that you remained silent can't be brought up in a trial?

Good question. It seems like this case is saying that remaining silent can be used in Court. The 5th means you don't have to say anything, but does that mean that the fact of "taking the 5th" becomes some kind of secret?

Detective at trial: "I asked him if he killed the guy."
Prosecutor: "what was his answer?"
Detective: "it's a secret."

[Brian4Liberty]

“The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; it does not establish an unqualified right to remain silent,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

“Before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, he was required to invoke it,” Justice Alito added in turning aside an appeal by a defendant convicted of murder in Texas.

That doesn't make sense though. At some point, a person may decide or realize that they should remain silent. There should be no time limit on that. It's applies when it applies, which can occur at any time.

"Sorry, you no longer have that right because you didn't file a request to utilize the 5th Amendment in triplicate with the Ministry of Confessions at least 90 days prior to your questioning".

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee332/McLieberman/e2762734-1ffc-49a7-aab6-8b913f839e00_zpsb388050f.jpg

[Sam I am]

Silence is not a confession. But it's still something. I don't see why we should feel obligated to pretend that something that did happen didn't.


If you know that your silence is going to be used against you, than you certainly wouldn't feel safe remaining silent, and when silence isn't a safe bet, than it's a whole lot easier to coerce someone to confess, because they more or less feel like they're being forced to talk.

[erowe1]

If you know that your silence is going to be used against you, than you certainly wouldn't feel safe remaining silent, and when silence isn't a safe bet, than it's a whole lot easier to coerce someone to confess, because they more or less feel like they're being forced to talk.

But they're not being forced to talk. They can lie, or tell the truth, or remain silent. If they're guilty then all of those options have disadvantages.

Honestly, even if they showed a video of the entire interrogation in a trial, I have trouble seeing how there could be anything wrong with that.

A right to remain silent doesn't make silence into something other than what it is.

[Anti Federalist]

You will be used against you in a court of our choosing.

[Contumacious]

It is a right, not a privilege. You don't have to ask for a right. These Judges are enemies of the Constitution, they should be removed from the bench and tried for treason.

federal Judges are self-immunized.

The moral of the story is that police officers will never shoot the breeze with you.

You must be assertive and ask "Am I under arrest" No? Get the fuck out of there.

.

[Anti Federalist]

In a case with important implications for individuals at the early stages of a police investigation, the high court said that a suspect must verbally invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to prevent police and prosecutors from using any resulting silence and incriminating body language as evidence of guilt during a jury trial.

And this goes here, yet again:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Anti Federalist]

The high court split 5 to 4 on the issue, with the court’s five-member conservative wing rejecting a claim to the Fifth Amendment privilege in the case under scrutiny and the four-member liberal wing supporting such a claim.

More bi-partisan tyranny.

Come and get ya some.

[Brett85]

I find myself surprised by how often I agree with the liberals on the court in these kind of criminal cases. If only they weren't so terrible on everything else.

[Anti Federalist]

I find myself surprised by how often I agree with the liberals on the court in these kind of criminal cases. If only they weren't so terrible on everything else.

Kind of like agreeing to get hit by pies for a few hours.

The clown on the left throws one, then the clown on the right throws one.

And everybody, except the poor fucker getting hit by pies, laughs.

[Lucille]

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35577/Wendy-McElroy-Your-Silence-Confesses-Your-Guilt/


On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) further eroded one of the most potent protections Americans had against unfettered authority: the right to remain silent. In Salinas v. Texas, SCOTUS ruled that a defendant's refusal to answer police questions before his arrest and before being Mirandized could be admitted into court as substantive evidence of his guilt. If such a defendant did not explicitly invoke the Fifth Amendment, then he had effectively waived it.

Last week, the California Supreme Court expanded the SCOTUS precedent. It restored a 2007 vehicular manslaughter conviction that had been reversed by a lower court. The original conviction had been appealed on the grounds that the defendant's silence was introduced as evidence against him. The 'damning' silence was not a refusal to answer police questions. Rather, at the scene of the car crash, the defendant had not inquired about the welfare of those in the other vehicle. This, the prosecutor argued, was proof of his guilt. The jury agreed.

There are many reasons to remain silent when confronted by the police or by a legally precarious situation. For one, lawyers and legal sites strongly advise people to do so. Even totally innocent people can incriminate themselves by making confused statements. Now both silence and words could become evidence of guilt.

History offers a glimpse into why certain rights came into prominence and what life might resemble without them.
[...]
Significance of the Right to Remain Silent

The right to remain silent is at the core of American due process. It is historically anchored in the quest for religious freedom that was instrumental in founding America. It served as the strongest single protection against the use of torture by state authorities.

Today, security is said to trump liberty. Due process guarantees are often viewed as obstacles to security because they shackle authorities who are allegedly hunting terrorists and the like. It is true that due process occasionally protects the guilty. But what it always protects are average people who would otherwise be targets for the exercise of arbitrary power.

The great wrongs of history, such as religious persecution, gave rise to solutions that preserved human rights and dignity. Forgotten history repeats itself. Forgotten wrongs do so as well. The right against self-incrimination arose as a protection against the use of torture to compel confessions. Without a suspect's right to silence, the authorities have the privilege of making him speak. That could be the next logical step in the utter erosion of this indispensable protection.

[acptulsa]

Silence is not a confession. But it's still something. I don't see why we should feel obligated to pretend that something that did happen didn't.

Hearsay is something, too. But it is proof of nothing, and has no place in a court of law. Along with opinion, technical analysis by non-experts, innuendo, and a bunch of other crap any self-respecting judge will toss out of his court.

I'd say any mention of silence on the part of the defendant would basically be innuendo. In any case, I consider it incompetent, not best evidence, irrelevant and a few other things. And have zero faith in a Supreme Court that says otherwise.

[Philhelm]

The only logical enforcement method is torture.

[brushfire]

Another one bites the dust

http://i.imgur.com/ncwonit.gif

[heavenlyboy34]

The upside of stories like this is that they help people understand how evil the just-us system is, even if only a few at a time.

[aGameOfThrones]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me62nhK9p91qlsrn9o1_500.gif