GFY Lawyers, Is this a 5th ammendment situation ?

[JFK]

or would it have been ? As it says in the body of the text below,

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

[Captain Kawaii]

It is a pretty disturbing development. Our attorney still advises to say nothing until he is present. I think the Salinas issue was he answered "some" questions.

[_Richard_]

they are drone striking 16 year old american citizens

5th amendment is not a concern

[RyuLion]

good question..

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

they are drone striking 16 year old american citizens

5th amendment is not a concern

Well, at least the 16 year old never had to worry about remaining silent.

[Joe Obenberger]

I would not get involved in this post, but a friend sent me the link to this thread and so here goes:

Before anyone gets entirely carried away with any words from any opinion, notice that it's a plurality decision; in other words, no majority, no five justices agreed in any one opinion.

Alito, the Chief Justice, and Kennedy agreed in one opinion.

Thomas and Scalia concur in the judgment, but for different reasons. They set those reasons out separately.

That makes five, united in an outcome, for different reasons that no majority agreed upon.

Breyer writes a dissent, joined by three, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. That's four altogether, a minority, but a minority that agrees.

And what's clear from a majority of voices is that if the defendant had simply said that he was invoking his right to remain silent, his refusal to answer/his silence could not be used against him. Like the dissenters, I think that's a bit ritualistic, too ritualistic to be good constitutional law, but that's what they said.

[Vendzilla]

PRISM must have got a confession from him

[Jel]

found out in 2008 that giving a no comment interview here in the UK is 'a sign' that the defendant is guilty. not that magistrate's courts are exactly known for ever finding defendants not guilty anyway.

[dyna mo]

if silence is going to be used as evidence it should be better defined legally, when i check law.com for the legal defintion of the term, it comes up blank.


no wonder the courts, including the sc are so confused on the matter.

[Yanks_Todd]

Isn't remaining silent just that. You either don't speak or you do. I don't believe it is a state you can float in and out of. Once you speak you are no longer silent therefore they are gathering evidence.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Well, at least the 16 year old never had to worry about remaining silent.

and the US will finally learn what a 'martyr' is

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

I would not get involved in this post, but a friend sent me the link to this thread and so here goes:

Before anyone gets entirely carried away with any words from any opinion, notice that it's a plurality decision; in other words, no majority, no five justices agreed in any one opinion.

Alito, the Chief Justice, and Kennedy agreed in one opinion.

Thomas and Scalia concur in the judgment, but for different reasons. They set those reasons out separately.

That makes five, united in an outcome, for different reasons that no majority agreed upon.

Breyer writes a dissent, joined by three, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. That's four altogether, a minority, but a minority that agrees.

And what's clear from a majority of voices is that if the defendant had simply said that he was invoking his right to remain silent, his refusal to answer/his silence could not be used against him. Like the dissenters, I think that's a bit ritualistic, too ritualistic to be good constitutional law, but that's what they said.

Joe, thanks for getting in on this! Could he have invoked his right to remain silent, even before having his rights read ?

[Barry-xlovecam]

How could not answering interrogation questions, even selectively, especially before the defendant having been read his Miranda rights, allow the prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and secure a conviction (in a criminal case)?

The presumption of innocence is integral to United States criminal law.

Fifth Admendment: [n]or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...

Seems pretty clear, I agree with the dissent ...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd

Isn't remaining silent just that. You either don't speak or you do. I don't believe it is a state you can float in and out of. Once you speak you are no longer silent therefore they are gathering evidence.

it's interesting how that can be argued:

The prosecutors said that during a 58-minute interview with police, Salinas answered all but one question. At the trial, a police officer told the jury of Salinas?s reaction to being asked the question about the shotgun.

The officer said he ?looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his lower lip, clinched his hands in his lap, began to tighten up.?

When officers asked a new set of questions, Salinas once again became talkative, they said. The prosecutors added that in his own way Salinas answered the question about the shotgun through his nonverbal conduct. They added that he never invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

i think here they are saying by drifting back into answering questions, he proved he answered the previous question silently.

my interpretation.

[Harmon]

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by JFK

Joe, thanks for getting in on this! Could he have invoked his right to remain silent, even before having his rights read ?

JFK - You always have the right to remain silent, whether you are in custody or not in custody, whether you've been read your rights or not. You have that right when testifying before a congressional committee, in court, in a traffic stop, and even on a survey of drug use at school.

When a cop pulls you over and asks you how fast you were driving or whether you know the speed limit, the correct answer is that you decline to waive your right to remain silent. There is no magic formula to saying it. But now, in light of this decision, it's important that you identify that this is the basis for your silence.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Harmon

[beerptrol]

"Prosecutors can use a person's silence against them"

That's one thing they can never use against my gf.

[Joe Obenberger]

Here is the whole thing. Your tax dollars at work.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-246_1p24.pdf

[Throckmorton]

So if a cop asks you anything at all, would the best answer be something like "I invoke my fifth amendment right to remain silent and will not answer any questions without the presence of an attorney?"

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Here is the whole thing. Your tax dollars at work.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-246_1p24.pdf

Thanks again Joe

[Sunny Day]

Had a friend who was a barmaid at a topless bar. They unofficially sponsored a Casino Night. She was the bartender working only for tips. That saved her hide when 75 FBI agents raided the place looking for mobsters.
She had to go down to the FBI for questioning. Her lawyer told her in advance, "when they ask you a question, before you answer look at me. If I nod yes then answer. The minute I shake my head no, you take the 5th for every question after that. If you mistakenly answer a question after taking the 5th you are required to answer every question from then on."
About 10 minutes into questioning she got the NO signal. Had to take the 5th for about an hour and a half before the FBI gave up.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Throckmorton

So if a cop asks you anything at all, would the best answer be something like "I invoke my fifth amendment right to remain silent and will not answer any questions without the presence of an attorney?"

My late Father, who dropped out of high school to work in the 1930's - provided some wisdom on this topic that I'll share with you.

He used to say that nobody ever got hanged for something he didn't say.

Until this week, that was pretty good advice. But now it needs a bit of updating.

Nobody ever got hanged for invoking the Fifth.

Remember when Tony and Big Pussy executed that Belocqua kid, the one who'd shot Christopher? And the FBI came to Tony's house and asked him to get down to their office? Next scene, Tony's talking with his crusty old veteran lawyer. He says that if the G had a case, this conversation would be taking place through glass. Tony asks why they want him to make a statement. The lawyer tells Tony - astutely - that they want to pin him down to a story. Any story. So that if he changes it at trial, they can make him look like a liar. It should be added that it will enable them to better obtain and prepare evidence to refute any alibi. An alibi normally is one of the few things that a defendant must give notice of to the prosecution before trial, but the earlier the FBI knows about it, the better they can try to puncture it.

I want to add something else to the mix. This is important. Whenever you tell LE anything, you create a dangerous risk. That risk is that the agent/officer/detective is then open to write whatever he wants in his notebook. There just may be an honest failure to communicate and he may innocently write down something different from what you said. Or he can set you up by deliberately writing something else in his notes. It is a crime to lie to a cop in every jurisdiction. Pressure may be exerted upon you to testify to what's in that notebook if you are a witness, even if it is not what you believe that you said, even if you believe it to be untrue, by the threat of a prosecution for lying when interviewed. And if you are the target, anything you say is admissible if it is voluntary, etc. You avoid all this risk by saying nothing. I did some writing about all of this thirteen years ago and it's still good advice: http://www.xxxlaw.com/articles/if-you-get-arrested.html

[Shotsie]

Take a tip from the pros:

[PornDiscounts-V]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Good time to remain silent right there, bro!

[PornDiscounts-V]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

My late Father, who dropped out of high school to work in the 1930's - provided some wisdom on this topic that I'll share with you.

He used to say that nobody ever got hanged for something he didn't say.

Until this week, that was pretty good advice. But now it needs a bit of updating.

Nobody ever got hanged for invoking the Fifth.

Remember when Tony and Big Pussy executed that Belocqua kid, the one who'd shot Christopher? And the FBI came to Tony's house and asked him to get down to their office? Next scene, Tony's talking with his crusty old veteran lawyer. He says that if the G had a case, this conversation would be taking place through glass. Tony asks why they want him to make a statement. The lawyer tells Tony - astutely - that they want to pin him down to a story. Any story. So that if he changes it at trial, they can make him look like a liar. It should be added that it will enable them to better obtain and prepare evidence to refute any alibi. An alibi normally is one of the few things that a defendant must give notice of to the prosecution before trial, but the earlier the FBI knows about it, the better they can try to puncture it.

I want to add something else to the mix. This is important. Whenever you tell LE anything, you create a dangerous risk. That risk is that the agent/officer/detective is then open to write whatever he wants in his notebook. There just may be an honest failure to communicate and he may innocently write down something different from what you said. Or he can set you up by deliberately writing something else in his notes. It is a crime to lie to a cop in every jurisdiction. Pressure may be exerted upon you to testify to what's in that notebook if you are a witness, even if it is not what you believe that you said, even if you believe it to be untrue, by the threat of a prosecution for lying when interviewed. And if you are the target, anything you say is admissible if it is voluntary, etc. You avoid all this risk by saying nothing. I did some writing about all of this thirteen years ago and it's still good advice: http://www.xxxlaw.com/articles/if-you-get-arrested.html

Like how you broke down the why.

[purecane]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

and the US will finally learn what a 'martyr' is

Whoa whoa whoa..... The US has had several martyrs in the 200 plus years of this glorious country. JFK, Dr. King jr., and Abraham Lincoln to name a few.... Remember this fact please: The American government does not represent the people anymore.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by vvvvv

Good time to remain silent right there, bro!

Talk to my Lawyer

[Dead]

We still have the right to remain silent, and should use just that.

Great Thread JFK, nice to see real world advice.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Dead

We still have the right to remain silent, and should use just that.

Great Thread JFK, nice to see real world advice.

Thanks, I basically started it, because it intrigued me and I figured some learned minds such as Joe, might give some insight

[Dead]

Originally Posted by JFK

Thanks, I basically started it, because it intrigued me and I figured some learned minds such as Joe, might give some insight

Thick as Thieves! None the less, Nice to see on the public board

[EroAdvertising Paul]

Originally Posted by beerptrol

"Prosecutors can use a person's silence against them"

That's one thing they can never use against my gf.

I lol'd..

[Relentless]

If you are ever arrested, go with 'My name is ... And I would like to speak to my attorney' immediately.

[MrMaxwell]

Sometimes being innocent and giving innocent answers can put you in a world of hell. Any answers you give can be interpreted all to hell. Officers are NOT stupid, they question people daily. Everyone should see this.

[Johny Traffic]

Originally Posted by Jel

found out in 2008 that giving a no comment interview here in the UK is 'a sign' that the defendant is guilty.

Unless you are a mute

[Spudstr]

Originally Posted by JFK

or would it have been ? As it says in the body of the text below,



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

the problem is he was talkign to them and then he shut up. The rule is you just don't talk to them before or after you are read your rights. You don't talk to the police.

[Best-In-BC]

5th amendment situation ? Im confused, everything ive ever read says the only amendment you have atm that's not been violated is your gun one and thats about the be fucked with for liberial horse shit reasons.

[Throckmorton]

Originally Posted by Spudstr

the problem is he was talkign to them and then he shut up. The rule is you just don't talk to them before or after you are read your rights. You don't talk to the police.

Don't you have to provide your name and show ID if asked? Is it after that that one should invoke one's right to remain silent?