Supreme Court rules against the 5th Amendment, your right to remain silent.

reply to post by flyswatter


I dont think its the silence that's the problem, i think it has to do with the questions asked during interrogation. You know how they like to rearrange the wording to make it sound like a different sentence.

They are trying to implicate you or someone else at all costs, and once they catch you in a lie your goose is cooked.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I dont think its the silence that's the problem, i think it has to do with the questions asked during interrogation. You know how they like to rearrange the wording to make it sound like a different sentence.

They are trying to implicate you or someone else at all costs, and once they catch you in a lie your goose is cooked.

Hell yeah they'll cook you if you lie, and they should. Thats why you need to either be honest and up front about the case, or remain silent / invoke your 5th amendment rights (whichever is applicable to the situation).

I remember when Bobby got nabbed by the cops....they thought he may be drunk....so they took him in to the station for a breathalizer.
he never said a word for three days.....including a refusal to blow...
they eventually realised who he was and go his wife to identify him....
he still hadnt said a word....
anyways the judge let him off as he hadnt refused to blow.....just never said jack #.

How would it have mattered. If he claims the 5th and says nothing, couldn't the idea that he didn't it still be postulated that he was guilty. If he said no would the police just take his word and not research the facts.

Many times the 5th is claimed which will cause many to think guilt. Evidence must be used to prove it. If a jury was to use silence as a fact of guilt they are being unjust.

reply to post by gladtobehere


But this is not the way this case plays out. He didn't remain silent he selectively chose to during the course of his interview. That isn't exactly remaining silent. If you want to remain silent, then all you have to tell them is you will not speak to them without your attorney. Which is exactly what you should do. The police are not your friends if they are questioning you under any circumstances you are a suspect and if they can find a way to charge you with something as a result of that interview they will.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Damn I was hoping this had some thing to do with Louis Learner.

That skank-ho needs to talk!

According to your post the fifth still stands. You just need to invoke your rights.

Unlike Learner who just wanted to tell her side of the story then not answer any questions. Sorry skank you have already given up your right to silence. Now start talking or be charged with contempt.

reply to post by gladtobehere


That's BS! Has anyone ever heard the term 'Tacit agreement'?

This means that even if you don't know the laws of a land you still agree to abide by those laws, and may be prosecuted for doing something that you didn't know was against the law.

This also MUST work in reverse where if you don't know a law that protects you, you STILL have a right to be protected by that law.

The crux of the matter was his agreement6 to speak in the first place.....
He should have invoked the fifth right away.....
The only plan is to NEVER SPEAK to POLICE.
If they arrest you then invoke the fifth, but never speak to them beforehand either....

Originally posted by jiggerj
...That's BS! Has anyone ever heard the term 'Tacit agreement'?
...This means that even if you don't know the laws of a land you still agree to abide by those laws, and may be prosecuted for doing something that you didn't know was against the law.
...This also MUST work in reverse where if you don't know a law that protects you, you STILL have a right to be protected by that law.

And then came the IRS!
Who will accuse you of owing them tons...for as far back as (at least) 7 years... But - if you prove that, in fact, THEY owed you for ALL 7 years...they only remunerate for the last 2.
How is it that the government (or - IRS if you count them different) can hold you liable for more than they are liable for?
I know this had something to do with what you stated...
Maybe you'll see the relation.

Originally posted by charles1952

This decision, in plain English:
...

www.scotusblog.com...

He voluntarily goes to the station, talks about the murder willingly, then abruptly stops for no reason. The prosecutors point out that he stopped talking. Why shouldn't they be able to? He wasn't under arrest, he expressed willingness to talk, Miranda doesn't apply, then all of a sudden he stops talking? How does anyone know he's changed his mind and now wants to take the Fifth?

I get so frustrated with legal threads.

Excellent post.
He was trying to get out on a technicality. Understandable...BUT~
The prosecution didn't convict him... They, essentially, tried to convince the jury that his silence, in light of the circumstance, spoke volumes. And, apparently - the jury believed the prosecution.
That is kind of scary (considering an innocent person can be convicted if the prosecution is more convincing than the defense)...but, that's the system we're in.

I would just like to make a single statement on the potential misperception on my understandings of this thread.


I plead the 5th.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Wait, so saying I have the right to remain silent is effectively and oxymoron now?

If you remain silent by using your right to remain silent, you effectively lose the right to remain silent by remaining silent.

*I have a nose bleed now.

But those are part of th Maranda rights.. does it make a difference if your charged with something and read your Maranda rights - as opposed to just being called to the stand to testify?

If the cops had him, and they had forensics, then the admission by silence doesnt fly.
They should provide the proof of the shells matching the guns chamber.....they could have got a warrant for that much probably....
So his silence means nothing legally except a ploy for the jury....?
Or is the silence on his part the end of it and they want to hang him on that? thats a non starter i believe....

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Wait, so saying I have the right to remain silent is effectively and oxymoron now?

If you remain silent by using your right to remain silent, you effectively lose the right to remain silent by remaining silent.

*I have a nose bleed now.

But those are part of th Maranda rights.. does it make a difference if your charged with something and read your Maranda rights - as opposed to just being called to the stand to testify?

I don't know.

To be honest, I'm confused.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Wait, so saying I have the right to remain silent is effectively and oxymoron now?

If you remain silent by using your right to remain silent, you effectively lose the right to remain silent by remaining silent.

*I have a nose bleed now.

But those are part of th Maranda rights.. does it make a difference if your charged with something and read your Maranda rights - as opposed to just being called to the stand to testify?

Yeah, it can make a huge difference. If you're called to the stand to testify as a witness, you dont have the "right to remain silent". I guess you could get up there and not say a word, but you're risking contempt of court charges. If there are elements of your testimony that could incriminate you personally, you have the option of taking the 5th with no harm done. If the prosecutors or defense attorneys are aware that you dont want to answer questions ahead of time, they have a couple of options, one of them being not to bother with calling you (if you're lucky and you're not vital to the case). If the case is actually against you personally, you do have the option of not testifying at all, which is essentially pre-emptively asserting your 5th amendment rights.

reply to post by WanDash

They, essentially, tried to convince the jury that his silence, in light of the circumstance, spoke volumes. And, apparently - the jury believed the prosecution. That is kind of scary (considering an innocent person can be convicted if the prosecution is more convincing than the defense)...but, that's the system we're in.

Being convicted on silence to a question seems very unjust. If there was not more evidence I feel the jury didn't do their job.

Originally posted by stirling
If the cops had him, and they had forensics, then the admission by silence doesnt fly.
They should provide the proof of the shells matching the guns chamber.....they could have got a warrant for that much probably....
So his silence means nothing legally except a ploy for the jury....?
Or is the silence on his part the end of it and they want to hang him on that? thats a non starter i believe....

I think it's more a matter of - "the argument posed by the cops was used by the prosecution...". The "accused" was subsequently convicted (presumably - by a jury)...and in effort to escape his sentence - he (or - his attorneys) challenged the verdict, arguing that his "silence" (Constitutional Right?) was used against him.
To me, the court's decision seems sound...and the "appeal" was based on the hope that he could avoid/evade justice by technicality.
(The jury STILL had to give credibility to the Prosecution's argument.)

Originally posted by roadgravel
...Being convicted on silence to a question seems very unjust. If there was not more evidence I feel the jury didn't do their job.
...

I'm in full agreement - "if he was convicted on his silence".
The likelihood is that significantly more evidence would have been introduced (such as - perhaps - matching shell-casings)...

In other words, one has to remind the law enforcement and court types what one's own legal freedom is.

Maybe they don't know. Actually looking around the internet videos, they don't know, they don't pause to consider, and all they want is to put someone in a box. Car box, court box, concrete box, pine box, they don't want to think about it. All they care is that they can disinfect their hands after they handle someone. Rituals over souls.

If there wasn't a whole lot more evidence to convict this guy, then that conviction was a terrible indictment of U.S. justice.

It was a stupid question, how is this guy supposed to know what forensics might find or how accurate their results might be. Silence could have been simply refusing to answer a stupid question.

Was this issue brought up during the trial, or introduced by the prosecutor in closing remarks? This seems like a statement that the defendant's lawyer should have been able to address.

It is more evidence that you should never agree to be questioned without a lawyer. They will twist anything you may or may not say all out of proportion.