WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says 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 ____ ____, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon. Full Article
In the past year, I’ve seen some troubling decisions by the so called “constitutionalists” on the court. This was definitely one of them.
In their relentless pursuit of outcome determinative analysis, the Supreme Court will now incur the unintended consequence of citizens simply refusing to speak with the police at all in order to preserve their privilege against self-incrimination. From now on, cautious attorneys will advise their clients to never speak to the police, but instead silently hand them their attorney’s card imprinted with a notice that the bearer invokes his rights to silence and counsel under the fifth and sixth amendments. Good luck solving every criminal case without any help from the public guys! Fire up those CSI teams because they’re on their own.
This was short-sighted, though not as much as the imbecilic decision in 2003 to authorize the sex offender registry, to deny states’ rights in voting procedures, and to ultimately create the impetus to fully divest the US Constitution of the 4th, the 9th, and the 10th amendments as well as the ex post facto clause and the interstate commerce clause.
I guess SCOTUS has decided we’re all idiots and don’t know about our right to remain silent unless a police officer reads them to us. And I guess no one ever watches TV or movies either.
Agreed!