Salinas v. Texas what a bad ruling..

[waggy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ivisions-and-signs-of-trouble-to-come/276931/

In Salinas v. Texas, the justices gave prosecutors a gift by upholding the murder conviction of a man whose silence during questioning was subsequently at trial used to help convince jurors of his guilt. What the decision really means is that to invoke your right to remain silent you have to initially speak up.




what happened is a guy was talked to by the police. he was NOT arrested so not read his rights. But they were asking him questions about the gun. he refused to answere the questions but NEVER said "im using my rights" or "im taking the 5th" . he just kept quite.

They used that (and the judge agreed) that as a sign of guilty.

the Supreme court agreed. they say since he was not arrested or verbaly claimed his rights he didnt get to use them.

WHAT THE FUCK!


NOTE: I know a at least one fucking idiot is going to come in and say "see pleading the 5th proves you are guilty!" no. IF he would have claimed the 5th he would be fine. its the fact he didn't say a damn word at all.

 

[_Rick_]

So, now you can't even give a witness report before a court hearing, without getting shafted for it?

That's pretty bad, as a witness is usually motivated to help police solve a crime, but may not always want to talk about all details, because some personal/privacy issues may be involved. That this can now be used as evidence against you is very scary. I wonder how the prosecution wants to build cases now, when every witness will be told to STFU, because they could end up incriminating themselves, despite being innocent.

Also, if the issue was truly the technicality, of not stating that he was keeping silent because he was exercising his rights, then this is even more messed up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whoa, that's awful. Only one justice gave a crap about rights.

 

[Jimzz]

Whoa, that's awful. Only one justice gave a crap about rights.

??? It was a 5-4 vote.

 

[Texashiker]

What the decision really means is that to invoke your right to remain silent you have to initially speak up.

What the decision means is you can not selectively answer questions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Righties wanted a law & order "Conservative" majority in the SCOTUS, and they have it.

If the consequences are not what they anticipated, perhaps they should re-evaluate the basis on which they formulated that desire.

Not likely.

 

[Slick5150]

What the decision means is you can not selectively answer questions.

This. Not to bring "facts" to this discussion, but that's essentially what the ruling means.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's not what the OP described it to be.

 

[xBiffx]

Last time I checked you didn't have to do anything to retain rights other than be a citizen and be alive. Since when do you have to say something to be afforded your 5th amendment rights? You can make a statement claiming the 5th or say nothing. Nowhere in the 5th is it required for you to state you have that right. Nothing in the Bill of Rights requires any action on behalf of the citizens for these rights to be valid. They are innate.

What a terrible ruling. It seems the SC is fully on board with eroding more and more of our rights as more and more rulings occur.

 

[nehalem256]

The purpose of constitutional rights is not to protect guilty people. It is to protect innocent people from unwarranted harassment by the government.

If police question a person and he refuses to answer why shouldn't that be admissible evidence in court? It is of course up to the jury to decide what the non-answer means.

EDIT: I mean imagine you are on a jury. And the police say we asked the defendant about a gun and he refused to answer. As a juror does that seem like a very clear admission that he used the gun to commit murder?

 

[xBiffx]

The purpose of constitutional rights is not to protect guilty people. It is to protect innocent people from unwarranted harassment by the government.

That is where you are wrong. It is to protect all citizens. A citizen is not guilty until proven so in a court of law.

Nowhere does it say only innocent persons are afforded the rights of the 5th. Actually is says "no person" without the use of the word innocent.

 

[Texashiker]

The purpose of constitutional rights is not to protect guilty people.

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

??? It was a 5-4 vote.

Sorry. I was reading Bryer's opinion. Must not post too early in the morning

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The purpose of constitutional rights is not to protect guilty people. It is to protect innocent people from unwarranted harassment by the government.

If police question a person and he refuses to answer why shouldn't that be admissible evidence in court? It is of course up to the jury to decide what the non-answer means.

EDIT: I mean imagine you are on a jury. And the police say we asked the defendant about a gun and he refused to answer. As a juror does that seem like a very clear admission that he used the gun to commit murder?

Imagine you are a kid who gets beat up by the cops. Happened to me. So you are questioned by those who have harmed you for no good reason about a murder. You are afraid so you say nothing. How does that make him guilty?

Mere silence is not evidence of guilt and should not be considered.

 

[nehalem256]

That is where you are wrong. It is to protect all citizens. A citizen is not guilty until proven so in a court of law.

Nowhere does it say only innocent persons are afforded the rights of the 5th. Actually is says "no person" without the use of the word innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty.

But that does not change the fact that constitutional rights do not exist so that people can freely engage in criminal activities. That is insane.

They exist so the government cannot just come and harass you because the local chief of police doesn't like you.

If the police question you and you refuse to answer a question, and that is presented to a jury, how is that a violation of your constitutional rights?

 

[nehalem256]

Imagine you are a kid who gets beat up by the cops. Happened to me. So you are questioned by those who have harmed you for no good reason about a murder. You are afraid so you say nothing. How does that make him guilty?

(1) There is no claim that the guy was beat by the cops. Obviously if that were the case the only questioning session would basically be worthless

(2) The bolded seems like a question for a jury to consider.

Mere silence is not evidence of guilt and should not be considered.

For most of the interview, petitioner answered the officer's questions. But when asked whether his shotgun "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder," petitioner declined to answer. Instead, petitioner "[l]ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up." After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which petitioner answered

And of course in this case it is not mere silence that is evidence for guilt. It is the fact that he freely answered questions for an hour, but then went silent and acted nervous on one particular question.

 

[Texashiker]

If the police question you and you refuse to answer a question, and that is presented to a jury, how is that a violation of your constitutional rights?

You know what would be better, if police were allowed to torture, or detain people until they agreed to answer the questions.

Refuse to answer a question? Thats ok, just hold that person in prison until they answer.

We have the right to remain silent for a reason.

 

[berzerker60]

I didn't think I'd ever say it, but in parts of this, nehalem is right. You can stay silent all you want and that's not evidence of guilt in any way. You just can't answer a bunch of questions, then go silent on one particular question, without saying you're using your rights, and not have that decision to go silent on that particular question being usable as evidence in court.

It's not a decision I much agree with, but it's not like staying silent is now evidence of guilt. It's a very specific circumstance. The real lesson is to never talk to police except through a lawyer, ever.

 

[nehalem256]

You know what would be better, if police were allowed to torture, or detain people until they agreed to answer the questions.

Refuse to answer a question? Thats ok, just hold that person in prison until they answer.

We have the right to remain silent for a reason.

The guy wasn't tortured or held for hours. He freely answered questions to police for an hour except with respect to the one about the gun where he went silent and acted nervous.

The fact that to make it sound like a violation of his rights you have to invent stuff that didn't happen seems to be awfully telling to me.

That incident doesn't sound like violating his rights. It sounds like good police work.

 

[_Rick_]

What if isn't talking about it to protect someone? What if he isn't talking about that issue for other personal issues? Surely, it can be construed to be evidence, but the point is, that it creates a terrible precedence where a witness can be tagged as a perpetrator, by remaining silent about an issue. Whichever the reasons the witness remained silent, it's not an indicator of guilt, while the 5th Amendment holds. Except in that course it just became just that.

Imagine a guy is with a hooker, leaves her boudoir, and bam, some other guy kills her. he gets called as a witness, because he reported hearing a gunshot. He doesn't want to lie about the prostitution issue, so when asked whether he knew the woman he remains silent. Later on he becomes a suspect, is detained, DNA sampled. Should the silence from the witness report now be used against him?

 

[BoberFett]

Heh. Righties wanted a law & order "Conservative" majority in the SCOTUS, and they have it.

If the consequences are not what they anticipated, perhaps they should re-evaluate the basis on which they formulated that desire.

Not likely.

Do us all a favor and die a horrible cancerous death.

 

[nehalem256]

What if isn't talking about it to protect someone? What if he isn't talking about that issue for other personal issues? Surely, it can be construed to be evidence, but the point is, that it creates a terrible precedence where a witness can be tagged as a perpetrator, by remaining silent about an issue. Whichever the reasons the witness remained silent, it's not an indicator of guilt, while the 5th Amendment holds. Except in that course it just became just that.

Those all seem like things for a jury to consider.

As a juror failure to answer the question seems like insufficent evidence in and of itself to convict him.

Imagine a guy is with a hooker, leaves her boudoir, and bam, some other guy kills her. he gets called as a witness, because he reported hearing a gunshot. He doesn't want to lie about the prostitution issue, so when asked whether he knew the woman he remains silent. Later on he becomes a suspect, is detained, DNA sampled. Should the silence from the witness report now be used against him?

Maybe we should just prohibit all testimony that police gain from questioning a defendant? Just to be sure we aren't violating their rights...

 

[woolfe9998]

Imagine you are a kid who gets beat up by the cops. Happened to me. So you are questioned by those who have harmed you for no good reason about a murder. You are afraid so you say nothing. How does that make him guilty?

Mere silence is not evidence of guilt and should not be considered.

In the real world silence is evidence of guilt. Ask your kid if he took the cookie and if he fails to answer, then you probably infer that he did it or he'd answer. But your kid doesn't have a 5th Amendment right to not answer your question, so the analysis has to be different if we're talking about someone accused of a crime. It's not because it's illogical to infer guilt from silence - it isn't. It's that we have a privilege against self-incrimination and we don't want to penalize someone for using it.

The problem with this particular case is the defendant chose to answer certain questions, but remained silent in response to other questions, without invoking. Hence, it is ambiguous whether the person was exercising his right or simply not answering this particular question because he knew he was guilty. This ruling says IF you choose to selectively answer questions, you need to verbalize your invocation of the right or a jury can be asked to draw inferences from your silence. I don't know yet whether I agree with this ruling but I do understand it. One could remain totally silent and that would not be a problem. Or one could answer selectively but verbally invoke the right. But in answering some questions but not others, the defendant is creating an ambiguity which he is obligated to clarify, so he must invoke or the jury can draw whatever inferences it thinks are appropriate.

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty.

But that does not change the fact that constitutional rights do not exist so that people can freely engage in criminal activities. That is insane.

They exist so the government cannot just come and harass you because the local chief of police doesn't like you.

If the police question you and you refuse to answer a question, and that is presented to a jury, how is that a violation of your constitutional rights?

In the ordinary case, it IS a violation of your 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to ask a jury to infer guilt from your silence. This has been ruled on already many decades ago. The rationale is pretty clear, if you invoke the right, people will naturally consider that as evidence of your guilt, which means you are being penalized for choosing to exercise your right. People would rarely if ever invoke the right if they knew a jury could infer guilt merely from them having done so.

The reason this particular scenario yielded a different result with the court is only because he answered some questions but not others, AND he never verbally invoked the right.

 

[Atreus21]

What the decision means is you can not selectively answer questions.

Is that what this guy did? I didn't see mention of it in the linked content.

If it is, I agree with the ruling. If he didn't, I don't.

 

[Texashiker]

Is that what this guy did? I didn't see mention of it in the linked content.

From the linked article,

But when asked whether his shotgun "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder," petitioner declined to answer. Instead, petitioner "[l]ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up."

After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which petitioner answered [citations omitted by me].

5th paragraph down on the linked page.

While being questioned by police, the accused answered certain questions, and refused to answer others.