Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-17-2013, 03:30 PM
 
226 posts, read 229,959 times
Reputation: 79

Advertisements

This ruling has many people in disbelief.


News from The Associated Press


The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person’s silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent.

The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.

Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.
The high court upheld that decision...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2013, 03:48 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,383,900 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Jim Robinson View Post
This ruling has many people in disbelief.


News from The Associated Press


The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person’s silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent.

The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.

Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.
The high court upheld that decision...
If he had answered that question with, "Under the 5th Amendment, I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me", would the court have ruled against him?

"Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions - therefore not invoking his right to silence - and since he wasn't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection."

Hmmm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 03:56 PM
 
226 posts, read 229,959 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
If he had answered that question with, "Under the 5th Amendment, I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me", would the court have ruled against him?

"Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions - therefore not invoking his right to silence - and since he wasn't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection."

Hmmm.
It's kind of like that IRS lady a few weeks back who invoked her 5th Amendment rights but when she opened her mouth (the next day I believe) she forfeited the 5th.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 03:57 PM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 10,031,106 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
If he had answered that question with, "Under the 5th Amendment, I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me", would the court have ruled against him?

"Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions - therefore not invoking his right to silence - and since he wasn't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection."

Hmmm.
Who does this guys think he is, an IRS director?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 03:59 PM
 
Location: North Las Vegas
1,125 posts, read 1,590,583 times
Reputation: 929
This is why when pulled in for questioning by the police, even if you know you are innocent, the first things out of your mouth to the police should be "I want my lawyer".

If they say, you don't get one because you have not been charged with anything, the say "Am I free to go?"

If the answer is yes, get up and walk out immediately. If no, then repeat "I want my lawyer".

The law is a tricky thing, better make sure at least on person in the room other than yourself is on your side!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,000,767 times
Reputation: 6128
The SCOTUS ruling was wrong - but this should be an object lesson to NEVER TALK TO COPS without the presence of an attorney.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,000,767 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymberwulf View Post
This is why when pulled in for questioning by the police, even if you know you are innocent, the first things out of your mouth to the police should be "I want my lawyer".

If they say, you don't get one because you have not been charged with anything, the say "Am I free to go?"

If the answer is yes, get up and walk out immediately. If no, then repeat "I want my lawyer".

The law is a tricky thing, better make sure at least on person in the room other than yourself is on your side!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 06:20 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,036,965 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
The SCOTUS ruling was wrong - but this should be an object lesson to NEVER TALK TO COPS without the presence of an attorney.
Now without Googling... what were the facts before the Court?

And please explain why the Court was wrong, in your own words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top