US Supreme Court to consider whether silence can be evidence of guilt - Polidicks

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-court-silence-idUSBRE90A13P20130111[/url] [quote=Reuters][B]The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial.[/B] Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston. Salinas voluntarily answered police questions for about an hour, but he became silent when asked whether shotgun shells found at the crime scene would match a gun found at his home. An officer testified that Salinas demonstrated signs of deception. Ballistics testing later matched the gun to the casings left at the murder scene. Salinas was charged in 1993 but evaded arrest until his capture in 2007. His first trial ended in a mistrial. At his second trial, Texas was able to introduce evidence of his silence in the police station, over his lawyer's objections. Salinas' lawyer argued that his client deserved a Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, even though he had not been under arrest or read his rights under the landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona. Last April, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but noted that federal appeals courts are split as to whether "pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt." Texas opposed the appeal, saying that the protection against compulsory self-incrimination is irrelevant when a suspect is under no compulsion to speak, as Salinas was because he was not under arrest and was speaking voluntarily. It also said that any error was harmless. A decision is expected by the end of June. The decision is Salinas v. Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-246.[/quote]

So much for "the right to remain silent", you know, the first fucking thing they say when you are arrested?

It should be considered, but only under observation of someone who actually knows their shit in this regard (a psychologist for example.) And even then, it should never be used as hard evidence or admittance of guilt - I could wholly see that abused.

everyone who reads this thread and doesn't reply to it is guilty of 3 counts of murder and 2 counts of sexual assault on a minor

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39232014]So much for "the right to remain silent", you know, the first fucking thing they say when you are arrested?[/QUOTE] lol there is no way they're going to rule in favor of this

I don't understand how this is even debatable.

This is why you should never agree to police questioning without a lawyer present.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39232014]So much for "the right to remain silent", you know, the first fucking thing they say when you are arrested?[/QUOTE] Read the article or don't post at all. I believe that, due to it being voluntary, it shouldn't be, but it should be permitting a warrant.

I suspect that they're only accepting the hearing so that "the right to remain silent" becomes unassailable common law meaning that lower courts can't rule otherwise or accept silence as evidence

Whoever decided to bring this up for consideration is guilty of being an idiot.

So if I am getting this straight, if you aren't arrested you have to answer any question they ask you, but when you are arrested you have a right to remain silent? This is what they are deciding?

That's fucking stupid. Silence is exactly that, silence, meaning nothing other than refusal to answer.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39232070]Whoever decided to bring this up for consideration is guilty of being an idiot.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court has to consider most things eventually. It's a good thing because in the legal profession most lawyers and judges will try whatever they can to achieve their desired end. Again, I suspect the court is just trying to set a standard.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39232114]The Supreme Court has to consider most things eventually. It's a good thing because in the legal profession most lawyers and judges will try whatever they can to achieve their desired end. Again, I suspect the court is just trying to set a standard.[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure this standard was already set by the 5th amendment.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39232158]I'm pretty sure this standard was already set by the 5th amendment.[/QUOTE] They hadn't read his rights yet.

[QUOTE=Cablecorento;39232275]They hadn't read his rights yet.[/QUOTE]That doesn't mean he isn't entitled to them however.

Suddenly jails are filled with mute people.

Man, Gordon Freeman must have done a lot of crazy shit.

[QUOTE=Inplabth;39232020]I guess I'm rather confused as to why silence would be considered incriminating. I thought that was protected under the fifth amendment like it says in the article. If not, you're screwed if you say something or if you don't. It'd be lose, lose if they think you're guilty.[/QUOTE] it's basically "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of, so talk" which is an immeasurably large pile of poop

BETTER THAN COMMUNISM

[QUOTE=Hardpoint Nomad;39232381]Man, Gordon Freeman must have done a lot of crazy shit.[/QUOTE] Well he did make the HECU's most wanted list, they wanted him badly. He was also named Anticitizen One like 2 hours after he arrived in City 17, and even got a special nickname "Anticitizen Freeman" by the Overwatch Voice.

News like this makes me convinced the US is just a scripted comedy show, made for our entertainment.

[QUOTE=Noss;39233288]News like this makes me convinced the US is just a scripted comedy show, made for our entertainment.[/QUOTE]i'm not sure how this is funny

The article states that the man was willingly answering police questions before he clammed when it got to the shot gun stuff. That to me shows that the person is hiding something, and as the officer put it, "showed signs of deception" If you want to say nothing, say nothing from the beginning - not after you already spilled 99% of the beans

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39232014]So much for "the right to remain silent", you know, the first fucking thing they say when you are arrested?[/QUOTE] The cops themselves do everything in their power to get you to speak while in the back of the cars, even when you tell them you're exercising your right to remain silent, they will spend the whole time talking trying to get you to slip up. If you can no longer remain silent, Then this is very, very wrong.

Because exercising one of your rights that [I]everyone [/I] gets while getting arrested is a sign of guilt? for the Supreme Court to actually consider this, is retarded. And if somehow they [I]do [/I]find it a sign of guilt then they should just take it out of the Miranda rights all together.

Facepunchers don't seem to understand the court is taking the case so they can be like "Hey yeah remember that constitution thing? Still in force" They are [B]not[/B] going to rule that silence is evidence of guilt

If this turns out in favor as silence being a form of guilt. Then CyberPunk 2077 better but that into the storyline. Also pausing and saying "I plead the fifth" is going to be weakened.

[QUOTE=scout1;39234412]Facepunchers don't seem to understand the court is taking the case so they can be like "Hey yeah remember that constitution thing? Still in force" They are [B]not[/B] going to rule that silence is evidence of guilt[/QUOTE] Why is it even necessary, then?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39234439]Why is it even necessary, then?[/QUOTE] From the article: [QUOTE]Last April, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but noted that federal appeals courts are split as to whether "pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt."[/QUOTE] A ruling by the supreme court would make this 'split' moot.