or would it have been ? As it says in the body of the text below,
Quote:
|
Prosecutors can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent
|
Is'nt the suspect supposed to be read his rights before being questioned ?
"The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down another victory for the police state. They have ruled that when a suspect doesn't answer a question, it can be used as e...vidence in court to demonstrate guilt. 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. Salinas was answering some questions, but refrained from answering others. He remained silent when questioned about the murder weapon.
Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Texas courts as well as the Supreme Court upheld the decision to allow silence to be used as evidence."
The case is Salinas v. Texas.
http://news.yahoo.com/court-says-pre...855241.htmlSee More