You better speak up.

The Supreme Court ruled that pre-Miranda voluntary questioning and then subsequent silence can be used against the defendant UNLESS he expressly invokes it at the time of questioning (I invoke my right to remain silent). That is the prosecutor can comment about the defendant's silence with regards to specific questions if it is pre-Miranda.

The right to remain silent has been an interesting one as previously the Supreme Court has ruled post-Miranda if a person remains silent for 2+ hours in questioning that does not constitute invoking the right to remain silent so any comments after that would be considered admissible and not compelled. Additionally if a person invokes it, then the police scrupulously honor it and resume questioning a few hours later, that the person would have to invoke it again if he wants to continue to use it.

I just always found the two previous cases/rules amusing and now Salinas adds to that.

They also ruled recently that the authorities can swab your mouth prior to questioning and the accused must allow it. They also have the ability to follow every text, phone call, track your cell via GPS, and monitor everyone in your family if need be.

This is America, where we trade freedom and liberty for a sliver of security every day.

If if I'm innocent with what I think is an air-tight alibi, I would never answer any questions without a lawyer. Some people would say that looks suspicious. Perhaps it does, but imagine answering a couple of questions because you think you're just being asked as a witness, but then you realize you might be a suspect. This ruling, IMO, says that, if you then invoke your right to an attorney, they can present refusal to answer that question as some sort of indication of guilt.

gut;1459327 wrote:If if I'm innocent with what I think is an air-tight alibi, I would never answer any questions without a lawyer. Some people would say that looks suspicious. Perhaps it does, but imagine answering a couple of questions because you think you're just being asked as a witness, but then you realize you might be a suspect. This ruling, IMO, says that, if you then invoke your right to an attorney, they can present refusal to answer that question as some sort of indication of guilt.

The court has been chipping away at Miranda every since that opinion was given.

BGFalcons82;1459314 wrote:They also ruled recently that the authorities can swab your mouth prior to questioning and the accused must allow it. They also have the ability to follow every text, phone call, track your cell via GPS, and monitor everyone in your family if need be.

This is America, where we trade freedom and liberty for a sliver of security every day.

prior to questioning? you mean AFTER being charged with a crime as part of the booking process...

gut;1459327 wrote:This ruling, IMO, says that, if you then invoke your right to an attorney, they can present refusal to answer that question as some sort of indication of guilt.

i dont think that is what this ruling was about. it was more about making the suspect clearly inform the police he/she is wishing to invoke is his rights. whenever i read someone their rights, i always read it the same way from a pre approved script and then document the person's response so words cant be twisted later on.

if they answer question one and then sits in silence for question two, how am i supposed to know if he is refusing to answer or invoking is his right?

Glory Days;1459782 wrote:
if they answer question one and then sits in silence for question two, how am i supposed to know if he is refusing to answer or invoking is his right?

Why do I have to tell you? I'm being silent. Even a dumb cop can figure it out. Just another way to trick people.

hasbeen;1459792 wrote:Why do I have to tell you? I'm being silent. Even a dumb cop can figure it out. Just another way to trick people.

you dont pick and choose what you answer. once you invoke your right, questioning stops. that is why you should have to tell the cop. especially if you previously said you waive your miranda rights.

Glory Days;1459827 wrote:you dont pick and choose what you answer. once you invoke your right, questioning stops. that is why you should have to tell the cop. especially if you previously said you waive your miranda rights.

What if I don't say anything, at all. You told me I had the right to remain silent. So I remain silent.

hasbeen;1459953 wrote:What if I don't say anything, at all. You told me I had the right to remain silent. So I remain silent.

Then havent invoked your right and i am going to keep asking you questions. If you decide to answer question 14, dont come back later saying you didnt mean to answer it and you were using your right to remain silent.

hasbeen;1459953 wrote:What if I don't say anything, at all. You told me I had the right to remain silent. So I remain silent.

That's when you get hit with the phonebook.

Thanks Obama.

hasbeen;1459953 wrote:What if I don't say anything, at all. You told me I had the right to remain silent. So I remain silent.

Because that's the way the Supreme Court has ruled following the landmark Miranda case. They've been chipping away at not only the intention of that case, but also the text ever since. Originally it was written that there would be a heavy burden on the police to show that a defendant waived his Miranda rights and that getting a response eventually wasn't indicative of them waiving their rights. It was a case written to bite back at all the "tricks and questionable techniques" that police used to elicit information.

But with the way the case law developed the opposite has happened and it's become something else entirely. Pretty much you have to unambiguously invoke your rights (to an attorney or to remain silent) in order to claim them in a proceeding later on.