Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Decides Your Silence May Be Used Against You

Posted by Unknown on from the should-have-just-left dept.

crackspackle writes "The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Texas earlier today in a murder trial where the defendant, prior to be taken into custody, had been questioned by the police and chose to remain silent on key questions. This fact was bought up at trial and used to convict him. Most of us have seen at least enough cop shows to know police must read a suspect their Miranda rights when placing them in custody. The issue was a bit murkier here in that the defendant had not yet been detained and while we all probably thought the freedom from self-incrimination was an implicit right as stated in the Constitution, apparently SCOTUS now thinks you have to claim that right or at least be properly mirandized first." It appears that if you are "free to leave at any time" you lose a few rights. Fancy trick, up there with getting kids to write apology letters.

8 of 662 comments (clear)

  1. Black is white. War is peace. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Supreme Court has managed to hold that in order to remain silent, you must speak.

    Oh my people....

  2. How many times does it need to be repeated ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Never, under any circumstances, talk to the police. If you are free to go, then leave. If you aren't then ask for a lawyer and shut up.

  3. Bad Summary by Aranykai · · Score: 5, Informative

    The client did not answer one of several questions, and the prosecutor simply stated he had no response when asked a particular question. He was not charged with a crime for not responding, and he was not convicted of a crime for not responding. The ruling here was that the prosecution could admit as evidence that he did not answer a particular question during a conversation with a detective. Completely different things.

    This is why you DO NOT SAY ANYTHING to ANY QUESTION if you are being detained by the police. Be polite, request a lawyer and state frankly you are not answering any questions until you have counsel.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
  4. Re:wtf by cfsops · · Score: 5, Informative

    so if the police dont read you your rights, you lose them?

    No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene.

    The ACLU has a "bust card" that helps clarify the matter. The person in the article should have kept his fucking mouth shut, period.

  5. Re:wtf by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    "... the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene."

    Correct. It was what he did say, combined with what he did not say, that led to his conviction.

    That is why, even if you are "innocent" you should NEVER speak to the police about anything that involves you at all.

    HIGHLY recommended for everybody to watch, which explains why very clearly and in a no-nonsense way, are THIS VIDEO (part 1) and THIS VIDEO (part 2). About 49 minutes total. Very worth it.

    These are not some kind of government-conspiracy nuts but a defense attorney and a police detective.

  6. Re:wtf by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

    Clearly then the NDA I signed on my first day of work is unconstitutional as it violates my first amendment rights as I clearly have the right to go to the local media and spill my guts as to what my employer is building in secret (all legal projects, just not yet publically known).

    Of course you have that right.... but your employer also has the legal right to sue you, and the NDA that you signed would ensure that he would win.

    But you wouldn't go to jail for it... nor would you necessarily be breaking any laws by divulging such information unless it involved state secrets of national security.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  7. Re:wtf by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't believe that's true. To quote Findlaw.com

    Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity.

    But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions.

    You have the right to shut up at any point but I don't believe you can shut up and then start talking and then shut up again. This was the point of debate in the IRS congressional hearing where the manager made a statement and then plead the 5th.

  8. Re:wtf by mikelieman · · Score: 5, Informative

    When speaking to a police officer, there are only two things to say:

    (1) "Am I Under Arrest"

    Which will generate either a yes or no. Any answer other than "Yes" prompts the following question:

    (2) "Can I Go Now?"

    Which will generate either a yes or no. Any answer other than "Yes" prompts the following question:

    (1) "Am I Under Arrest"

    repeat....

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org