Right to remain silent eroded

[Karl R]

In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court decided that a person's decision to remain silent could be used against them in court, unless the person explicitly states they are exercising that right.

See this article.

The police were questioning a suspect before reading him his Miranda rights, and he answered most of their questions. When they asked him whether his shotgun would match the evidence recovered from the scene, he remained silent, but he looked guilty.

Here's the first part that seems completely backward to me:
If he had answered the police and said something like, "Yes, it's going to match up with the evidence at the scene," his statement would have been tossed out ... because he had not been read his Miranda rights.

Miranda warnings came about because Ernesto Miranda's rape conviction was overturned ... on the basis that he did not know that he had the right to remain silent or request an attorney.

The current supreme court has decided that not only did Genovevo Salinas need to know about his right to remain silent, he had to know that it had to be invoked out loud.

As an educated individual who works in the legal field, I was completely unaware of that necessity until yesterday.

And that leads me to the second part that seems completely backward:
Suspects are expected to be much better informed about the nuanced details of their rights than they were 50 years ago. What gives the supreme court that expectation? (Having gone through the public school system, I think we can rule that out as a reason we'd be much better informed.)

 

[Sunstone]

The Court seems to pay more attention to its conservative wish list than to the Constitution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Silence as evidence of guilt?
It seems that government is trying to make it easier to convict us.

 

[Falvlun]

It seems like this ruling completely obliviates the purpose of having to read the Miranda rights to people before questioning. I agree, Karl. It makes no sense.

 

[Titanic]

Silence as evidence of guilt?
It seems that government is trying to make it easier to convict us.

I think secertly they alway's have wanted too.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In English law you have the right to remain silent.
But a jury has the right to view that with suspicion in the light of the circumstances...
This law was revised a few years ago, and is accepted in European law.

 

[oldbadger]

In English law you have the right to remain silent.
But a jury has the right to view that with suspicion in the light of the circumstances...

Yep... I've been retired from commercial detection for some time now, but I seem to remember that...........

The old caution was 'You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be used in evidence.'

Replaced by, 'You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something when questioned, which you decide to rely upon later.'

 

[Breathe]

Silence as evidence of guilt?
It seems that government is trying to make it easier to convict us.

I was on jury duty a while back, and the defendant responded 'no comment' to many questions. In discussion with other members, they explicitly stated his silence was 'basically an admission of guilt'. Later on, we found out the reason he responded 'no comment' in the discussions was because his solicitor had told him to do just that 'because he can always add it later', and after seeking a second opinion, he fired the solicitor for another one.

So in Britain, the right to silence is basically digging yourself into a ditch.

 

[Skwim]

Consider:

The Miranda warning, also referred to as Miranda rights, is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.

The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
Source: Wikipedia

______________________________________________________________________________

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___ (2010) (docket 08-1470), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands his or her right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware he or she has the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right.

The Court held that unless and until the suspect actually stated that he was relying on that right, his subsequent voluntary statements could be used in court and police could continue to interact with (or question) him. The mere act of remaining silent was, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked his or her rights. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence could be construed as implying a waiver.
Source: Wikipedia
​

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd posted that the Miranda warning was threatened
by these OINOs (Originalists In Name Only).
Lo!
A first step since Dobbs v Jackson etc...
Supreme Court rules out suing police for Miranda violations

BTW, SCOTUS created both qualified & unqualified
(Ie, unlimited) immunity. They're strengthening it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I think secertly they alway's have wanted too.

They love the military, cops and jails and they want as many of those as possible. Private sector jails of course.