Salinas v. Texas what a bad ruling..

[waggy]

From the linked article,



5th paragraph down on the linked page.

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

And you have that right. you can refuse to answere if you do not want to.

They even said IF he had declared his rights he would have been fine. the fact is he kept his mouth shut and refused to answer. Instead of declaring them.

witch a person shouldn't have to do.

 

[Texashiker]

And you have that right. you can refuse to answere if you do not want to.

It is not your right to selectively answer questions, that is what the supreme court ruling was about.

There was another case a year or so ago that dealt with a similar situation.

When the IRS lady made her statement to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, then refused to answer questions, she forfeited her right to remain silent.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ong-irs-official-invokes-5th-amendment-right/

An incensed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) spoke up that Lerner should testify, agreeing that she already waived her constitutional privilege.

“You don’t get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement, she ought to stand here and answer our questions,” Gowdy said, earning applause from the audience.

In order to have a fair trial, the witness can not selectively answer questions.

~ EDIT ~

Could we imagine what would happen if a witness only answered questions for the defense, and refused to answer questions for the prosecution?

 

[dank69]

It's nice to see so many conservative posters agreeing with the liberal judges in this case.

 

[monovillage]

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.

Why is it that a far left progressive like yourself always has to lie and exaggerate what conservatives think and want? How about you just admit that you don't have a clue? Why don't you stick to describing the type of authoritarian/totalitarian state that you lefties want since you're always wrong about what conservatives think.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

Makes a mute an easy target for any unsolved crime in Texas. You say Texas, my first thought, another miscarriage of justice.

edit; now dont you take the FIFTH in court, not during a police questioning? Plus Salinas, South of the border defendant getting a fair deal! Cm'on!

 

[Atreus21]

It's nice to see so many conservative posters agreeing with the liberal judges in this case.

I was inclined to agree with the liberal justices, but Texashiker's point changed my mind. I didn't know that the defendant was selectively answering questions.

If you're going to do that, it seems reasonable that the prosecution can make certain implications about it, and attempt to convince the jury of the same.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

The face of the real world depends in where you live. While not universal there are areas where abuse is an everyday occurance. Guilt is irrelevant. You stand in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong officer you can be taken down. When the police came at you in inner city Philly you ran. That's evidence of guilt. When arrested you fear. Guilt is irrelevant. If you speak it can be used against you. If you shut up it's now apparently evidemce. If you aren't educated in law you might say something, but it's evidence of guilt. This is not a cookie.

 

[glenn1]

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.

Given the facts of this case, how could you logistically handle the interrogation in a courtroom if the SCOTUS case had gone the other way? The lawyers could talk about the questions 1 through x that the defendant answered, but have to pretend that question x+1 that he didn't answer didn't exist and can't talk about it since the defendant is entitled to the "presumption" that he was pleading the 5A? To me there is some sense in the proposition that you can either: (a) say nothing at all, in which case assertion of 5A is implied; (b) answer questions until you assert 5A, and remain completely silent after that, or (c) have any answer (or non-answer) you give be considered a non-assertion of 5A.

One thing which does complicate this ruling for me is that the defendant wasn't "Mirandized" before questioning, which begs the question of whether defendant was aware of his 5A rights. I think that's an opening for appeal of his particular case while leaving intact the intellectual framework established by SCOTUS for assertion of 5A rights. If this is the way we're going with this, however, I think that we should require an adjustment of the Miranda warnings to explain it better.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It is not your right to selectively answer questions, that is what the supreme court ruling was about.

There was another case a year or so ago that dealt with a similar situation.

When the IRS lady made her statement to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, then refused to answer questions, she forfeited her right to remain silent.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ong-irs-official-invokes-5th-amendment-right/



In order to have a fair trial, the witness can not selectively answer questions.

~ EDIT ~

Could we imagine what would happen if a witness only answered questions for the defense, and refused to answer questions for the prosecution?

Too bad that is not what happened. She made a statement and refused any questions.

 

[Paul98]

So you don't have the right to remain silent anymore... good stuff.

 

[woolfe9998]

The face of the real world depends in where you live. While not universal there are areas where abuse is an everyday occurance. Guilt is irrelevant. You stand in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong officer you can be taken down. When the police came at you in inner city Philly you ran. That's evidence of guilt. When arrested you fear. Guilt is irrelevant. If you speak it can be used against you. If you shut up it's now apparently evidemce. If you aren't educated in law you might say something, but it's evidence of guilt. This is not a cookie.

Yes, but isn't it for a jury to decide what silence in the face of a question means? Nothing precludes the defense from arguing any of your points. Your original assertion is that silence is not evidence of guilt, but that is clearly not true if posed as an absolute. Depending on the circumstance, a jury could logically infer guilt from silence. The question here is whether the jury can consider it.

And the reason they can consider it here is the defendant's selective answering of questions without invoking the right.

To illustrate the problem with selective answering of questions, I'll point out a related legal privilege - between attorney and client - which is a creature of statute rather than of the Constitution. If a party chooses to selectively reveal what his attorney has told him, he is deemed to have waived the privilege because you cannot reveal attorney-client communications where they help you but stand on the privilege to avoid revealing whatever wouldn't help you. Here, that's exactly what the defendant was doing. The main difference is because this is a privilege of Constitutional dimension, he is actually allowed to selectively answer questions if he clearly invokes the privilege. It makes sense to me. If you don't invoke, it looks like you're just being evasive in answering certain questions and not others, and the jury should be allowed to draw whatever inferences from that it feels are logical under the circumstances.

 

[woolfe9998]

Given the facts of this case, how could you logistically handle the interrogation in a courtroom if the SCOTUS case had gone the other way? The lawyers could talk about the questions 1 through x that the defendant answered, but have to pretend that question x+1 that he didn't answer didn't exist and can't talk about it since the defendant is entitled to the "presumption" that he was pleading the 5A? To me there is some sense in the proposition that you can either: (a) say nothing at all, in which case assertion of 5A is implied; (b) answer questions until you assert 5A, and remain completely silent after that, or (c) have any answer (or non-answer) you give be considered a non-assertion of 5A.

I agree. That's essentially the holding here.

One thing which does complicate this ruling for me is that the defendant wasn't "Mirandized" before questioning, which begs the question of whether defendant was aware of his 5A rights. I think that's an opening for appeal of his particular case while leaving intact the intellectual framework established by SCOTUS for assertion of 5A rights. If this is the way we're going with this, however, I think that we should require an adjustment of the Miranda warnings to explain it better.

He wasn't Mirandized because that requirement only adheres when there is a custodial interrogation taking place. Custodial being the operative issue here. If you're aware that you're free to leave at any time, they need not Mirandize you. The rationale behind the rule is that only when you have been taken into custody do you feel compelled to answer questions such that it is necessary to remind you of your 5A rights.

 

[thraashman]

Why is it that a far left progressive like yourself always has to lie and exaggerate what conservatives think and want? How about you just admit that you don't have a clue? Why don't you stick to describing the type of authoritarian/totalitarian state that you lefties want since you're always wrong about what conservatives think.

He certainly is wrong if he assumes conservatives can think! BOOM!

 

[nehalem256]

One thing which does complicate this ruling for me is that the defendant wasn't "Mirandized" before questioning, which begs the question of whether defendant was aware of his 5A rights. I think that's an opening for appeal of his particular case while leaving intact the intellectual framework established by SCOTUS for assertion of 5A rights. If this is the way we're going with this, however, I think that we should require an adjustment of the Miranda warnings to explain it better.

Is it possible to not be aware of your Miranda rights anymore?

 

[monovillage]

He certainly is wrong if he assumes conservatives can think! BOOM!

This is the same USSC that supported Obamacare.

 

[Jimzz]

Is it possible to not be aware of your Miranda rights anymore?

You must live a sheltered life as the answer to that is yes!!! YES!!!

God there are some really dumb people out there that don’t even know basic things. Think of the times when late night TV hose ask people on the street things like who is the vice president, what the capital is, etc… or times they just make things up and ask did you hear about… and then see people lie so others will not think they are dumb.

Just watch COPs, the TV show, and see how many people go yes officer you can search my car that has 10 pounds of meth in it. Or I have several bricks of weed in my trunk let me speed and run this stop sign with a cop right behind me.

 

[sactoking]

I agree that someone under oath, subpeona, formal questioning, or other compelling reason cannot selectively answer questions. However, in this case the person was not Mirandized as the questioning was voluntary and non-custodial; in that case the person should always have the ability to selectively answer questions. If the police and prosecution find that selective answering to be insufficient they need to formalize the questioning of the person and Mirandize him/her.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Good post. I am similarly conflicted in that I see no reason the prosecution should not point out that he refused to answer some questions. However, if the prosecution can point out this refusal as evidence of guilt within the framework of establishing guilt, what's to stop them from similarly pointing out assertion of 5th Amendment rights as evidence of guilt, as long as they do not specifically use those words? And if the answer is "nothing", then how do we maintain our 5th Amendment rights at all when asserting them can be construed as guilt? I have to come down with the liberal justices here, even though I'm most sympathetic to the prosecution. Sometimes the cost of putting away even a murderer is simply too high.

 

[Jhhnn]

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

Why? Because I point out the obvious consequences of what Righties want, even as they whine in Denial?

5-4 decision, straight along ideological lines, so be careful what you wish for.

 

[Jhhnn]

The best part of all of this is the ridiculous interpretation of what evidence was actually used by prosecutors against Salinas. It wasn't his silence or his words, but his deeds, his body language & demeanor. Basically, he ratted himself out by squirming, fidgeting & not looking them in the eye when the question about the shotgun was raised.

Had he sat there calmly, looking them in the eye, saying nothing, waiting for the next question, the cops would have had nothing.

Prosecutor- "What did the defendant do when you asked him about the shotgun?"

Cops- "He just sat there."

It's not like that adds anything to the State's case.

It's kinda like running from the cops. They'll use that as evidence, even if you never say a word. Deeds matter, and the SCOTUS confirmed it.

It's always amusing to visit with the outrage junkies, though, particularly when their incredible ability to avoid cognitive dissonance through denial is quite as strong as it is here. They can believe in the righteousness of a conservative "law & order" court majority that bends over backwards to enable prosecutors even as they rail against the kind of decision that inevitably arises from such a majority.

Which, of course, just means that I'm the asshole for pointing out that Righties often hold contradictory beliefs as equally valid. It's sad that they can't, won't, even refuse to re-evaluate their most cherished beliefs when they jam their heads into an ideological corner.