The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

SC - you have to speak to remain silent
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3104		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:  SC - you have to speak to remain silent
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC - you have to speak to remain silent
This is a fart in a thunderstorm, and means absolutely nothing. You don't have to speak to remain silent. You can still just remain silent. The only difference is that the police can, if they want, keep asking you questions. You can keep right on not talking.

You never had an absolute right to silence anyhow because you never had the right to fail to identify yourself and your identity is not incriminating information. Neither is invoking your right to silence or asking for a lawyer. Both are Constitutionally protected and cannot be used against you in court so speaking to invoke them in no way alters anything.
Author:  Lenas [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Why is this a story? Police can question all they want, but the second you utter either of those phrases they have to stop. He didn't say anything, and the cops didn't do anything wrong.

Is it news that people are ignorant of their rights? Because it shouldn't be.
Author:  Taskiss [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Lenas wrote:
Is it news that people are ignorant of their rights?
I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the US who haven't heard the Miranda rights read at some point in their lives, as common as those words are in the movies, on tv, etc.

Ron White wrote:
I Had the Right to Remain Silent....But I Didn't have the Ability ...
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC - you have to speak to remain silent
Sounds more like a point of order than any kind of landmark ruling flying in the face of current practice.
Author:  Leshani [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
I like this ruling, once you state that you're invoking your right to remain silent any continued questioning can and should be considered coercive and be thrown out on that basis.
Sort of kills the good cop bad cop routine.
Author:  Leshani [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
double post
Author:  DFK! [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC - you have to speak to remain silent
Diamondeye wrote:
This is a fart in a thunderstorm, and means absolutely nothing. You don't have to speak to remain silent. You can still just remain silent. The only difference is that the police can, if they want, keep asking you questions. You can keep right on not talking.

You never had an absolute right to silence anyhow because you never had the right to fail to identify yourself and your identity is not incriminating information. Neither is invoking your right to silence or asking for a lawyer. Both are Constitutionally protected and cannot be used against you in court so speaking to invoke them in no way alters anything.


Your identity certainly could be incriminating in the sense that knowledge of prior arrests/criminal history will create bias against you.

That being said, from what I'm reading I honestly don't have a major issue with this, because it seems to be effectively what was already in place, contrary to Sotomayor's characterization.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:26 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, newsflash: The first ruling I hear Sotomayor's opinion of confirms her as a useless and clueless judge.
Author:  Ladas [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, her opinion is not well founded and overly inflammatory.

This changes nothing, and quite frankly, just illustrates the stupidity of the plaintiff.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC - you have to speak to remain silent
DFK! wrote:
Your identity certainly could be incriminating in the sense that knowledge of prior arrests/criminal history will create bias against you.


That's not incrimination. That's bias.

Quote:
That being said, from what I'm reading I honestly don't have a major issue with this, because it seems to be effectively what was already in place, contrary to Sotomayor's characterization.


Indeed.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/