CA Supreme Court rules silence can be used against suspects

[tsai3904]

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.

Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.

Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.

Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.

Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect's refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

...

The state Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling said Tom needed to explicitly assert his right to remain silent - before he was read his Miranda rights - for the silence to be inadmissible in court.

...

More:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-silence-can-be-used-against-suspects

 

[asurfaholic]

This is total BS. You have to announce your right to silence before being silent? Sheesh

 

[tod evans]

The entire "Just-Us" department need to be ripped out by their roots and mulched like any invasive weed.

Especially the pensioners because they are liable for what we're dealing with today.

 

[asurfaholic]

Dupe

 

[jct74]

had trouble with the link, here is another one for the same story

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-silence-suspects-25000247

 

[LibForestPaul]

This is total BS. You have to announce your right to silence before being silent? Sheesh

Monopoly control of legal rulings. AnarchoCapitalism for the win.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is total BS. You have to announce your right to silence before being silent? Sheesh

Next up: a ruling that your assertion of a right to silence can be used as evidence against you ...

 

[Anti Federalist]

Next up: a ruling that your assertion of a right to silence can be used as evidence against you ...

In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Berghuis v. Thompkins that criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent. Unless and until the suspect actually states that they are relying on that right, their subsequent voluntary statements can be used in court and police can continue to interact with (or question) them. The mere act of remaining silent is, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their rights. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence can be construed as implying a waiver.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This is total BS. You have to announce your right to silence before being silent? Sheesh

In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Berghuis v. Thompkins that criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent. Unless and until the suspect actually states that they are relying on that right, their subsequent voluntary statements can be used in court and police can continue to interact with (or question) them. The mere act of remaining silent is, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their rights. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence can be construed as implying a waiver.

 

[DFF]

Silence is guilt?

So what's next? Only being allowed to plead guilty?

Judge: "How do you plead? Guilty, or guilty?

Defendent: "Umm...uhhh..."

5 seconds later

Judge: "Sir, you're in contempt of court for not pleading guilty fast enough! Baliff, take him way!"

 

[Lucille]

I missed this thread! I posted Wendy's piece on it here.

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