Supreme Court Rules That Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used In Court

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-silence_n_3453968.html

Those nine black robed worms know who pays them. The government pays them.

Thousands of their less prestigious counterparts also know who pays them. The power elite selects political and judicial vermin. Justice is a farce. Their function is to give the impression of equality under the law while securing the status quo.
Retaining their power and privileged position vs. the rest of us.

Big surprise that robed statists side with the government.

Since the po-po were questioning him, wasn't he under arrest at that point?

Or, do you have to press this issue and walk away if po-po are questioning you, so they have to then decide to arrest you if they want to keep questioning you?

How do it work?

So after Miranda rights given anything you say can be held against you and before Miranda anything you dont say can be held against you.

What happened to the 5th Amendment? Doesnt it say

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

So exercising your rights under the 5th Amendment is now an admission of guilt? Are they serious?

Does it seem here that while ignorance of the law is no excuse, knowledge of it is no protection.

Meaning, perhaps this fellow knew what his rights were in advance of being read the Miranda Warning?

Perhaps he was merely exercising his rights as he knew they existed...didn't need no cop to tell him, huh?

Does this look like a can't win for the accused to you?

legal scholars of FFXU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since the po-po were questioning him, wasn't he
> under arrest at that point?
>
> Or, do you have to press this issue and walk away
> if po-po are questioning you, so they have to then
> decide to arrest you if they want to keep
> questioning you?
>
> How do it work?

I think the court's decision rests on legal hair-splitting.

That said, the BIG mistake this guy made was that he agreed to let the police interview him without his lawyer being present.

Odds are very, very high that you will be fucked if you ever agree to such an interview.

Solution: Don't talk to police.

Here is a great video by a criminal defense lawyer turned law professor that explains the many, many ways the police can fuck you over if you fail to obey this simple rule:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


Part 2 of the video is also worth watching. This is a follow-up talk by a veteran cop turned law student. He explains how police psychology works during interrogations. People think they can out-think the police, but 99.8% of the time they lose. Solution: Don't talk to police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

The more I think about this case, the more it seems like a bad decision, maybe a very bad decision.

This analysis of the case points out that it "is likely to have a significant impact on police practices":

Do you have the right to remain silent?

Everyone seems to have missed

""Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'""

So what weve learned is that if you did something dont agree to an interview knowing youll be asked about it and if you dont want to answer say "I plead the fifth"

The New Unmiranda Rule:

"You don't have the right to remain silent. Anything you don't say will be used against you."

Liberal Logic 09 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what weve learned is that if you did something
> dont agree to an interview knowing youll be asked
> about it and if you dont want to answer say "I
> plead the fifth"


Actually, it's not clear under the new rule whether you have a right to plead the Fifth when you're not in custody.

It's not really clear yet what the full implications of this case will be.

Where is your Fifth now? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, it's not clear under the new rule
> whether you have a right to plead the Fifth when
> you're not in custody.
>
> It's not really clear yet what the full
> implications of this case will be.


Someone can certainly try and claim that though nothing about the Justices comments implies that they were limiting the 5th just that you have to specifically claim it and it doesnt just invoke itself if you dont answer.

With that said we all know theres officers out there who dont care about the truth and just want to pile up arrests who will try and use it anyway they can

legal scholars of FFXU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since the po-po were questioning him, wasn't he
> under arrest at that point?
>
> Or, do you have to press this issue and walk away
> if po-po are questioning you, so they have to then
> decide to arrest you if they want to keep
> questioning you?
>
> How do it work?

He was likely detained, but not under arrest. The police are allowed to detain you, but you're under no obligation to talk to them or give them any information except for your name and address, which they have a statutory right to demand of you.

The affirmative defense against police asking you questions is to very simply state, "I don't want to talk to you." If they press the issue, expand your answer to "I don't want to talk to you without my lawyer present." I'd suspect this would be enough of a defense that you positively asserted your Miranda rights.

Of course, the police will probably continue to detain you, and likely arrest you at that point (this can be as simple as the cop laying his hand upon your shoulder, thereby asserting custody of you). They will then bundle you into the back of their cop car and off to the can where you can stew overnight (or over the weekend) until they bring you before a judge.

The plain truth is that you should never talk to the police, because they've got a lot more tricks up their sleeve than you do up yours.

In short, yes, you do have to press the issue. Force them to arrest you if they think you're a malefactor (which you probably are) or let you go.

I was detained for over two hours and arrested twice (they arrested me, then unarrested me, then arrested me AGAIN before unarresting me the second time) for behaving like this once, but I didn't catch a charge.