Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: SCOTUS to decide if silence can be used as evidence of guilt

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    SCOTUS to decide if silence can be used as evidence of guilt

    .

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I can't believe this is even an issue.
    We have a right to remain silent.
    We have a right against self-incrimination.
    The peaceful exercise of a protected civil right is not & can never be evidence of a crime.

    The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt ...
    federal appeals courts are split as to whether "pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90A13P20130111

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    153
    Uhhhhhh....what

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Argument preview: A penalty for silence? Lyle Denniston @ SCOTUS Blog


  5. #5
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I can't believe this is even an issue.
    We have a right to remain silent.
    We have a right against self-incrimination.
    The peaceful exercise of a protected civil right is not & can never be evidence of a crime.




    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90A13P20130111

    LOL. You wrote this on tax day. No 4th or 5th amendment when it comes to legal plunder.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I thought that was already decided as a "no."

    On the tax rules violating the 4A and 5A: If you want those rights restored, support the Fair Tax.

  7. #7
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,232
    They pulled this stunt several years ago in the UK. Changed the "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used in evidence against you..." part to include (and I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting exactly) something to the effect of "but it could harm your defence if you fail to mention now, something you later rely on in court"

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    This question was settled hundreds of years ago. Literally.

    In his book Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-incrimination, Leonard Levy tells the history of the right in detail. One huge oppression was the use of the oath ex officio.

    Church leaders came from out of their office (ex officio) to investigate accused religious non-conformity and heresy. The oath was administered without the suspect even being told of what he was suspected. The suspect was required to swear to tell the truth. Telling a lie left the suspect in danger of eternal damnation. This was all part of the investigation phase. Not trial.

    A refusal to swear or answer was convict-able on the same penalty as the suspect offense.

    So, you could be penalized for not answering. And, you could be penalized for answering truthfully; and you can be penalized for lying. Exactly the question before the court today. Can your exercise of a right be used against you--can you be penalized for answering, not answering, and lying? Even though the trials of John Lilburne settled the question some 350 years ago in favor of the right against self-incrimination.

    In fact, the right existed even further back. It was the church that tried to pull a fast one and pretend it didn't. Even late in Elizabeth's reign, non-conformists were citing every Englishman's right to not convict himself from out of his own mouth: nemo tenetur prodere seipsum.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-16-2013 at 12:11 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    just goes to show you. you are guilty until proven innocent in America.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    This is a test of SCOTUS increasing fetish for foreign law. The UK has already allowed silence as evidence of guilt and abolished double jeopardy. Australia will eventually follow the UK's lead, I'd bet. Why shouldn't SCOTUS follow?

  11. #11
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    This is a test of SCOTUS increasing fetish for foreign law. The UK has already allowed silence as evidence of guilt and abolished double jeopardy. Australia will eventually follow the UK's lead, I'd bet. Why shouldn't SCOTUS follow?
    Because we have "written rules" they should follow.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,232

    just for information and a cautionary view of where this could lead us

    A couple of links with some insight to how remaining silent is treated in the UK.

    http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/bl...-balancing-act

    http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrig...o-silence.html

    Turns out I was close when I paraphrased earlier, I left out the 'when questioned'. Apparently the caution was changed to this format in 1994 and has been declared to make a trial verdict unfair by the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.fairweatherstephenson.co....ices/frscrime/)
    Q. Does the formal caution introduced by the government in 1994 (..."it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in Court") mean that you have lost the right to silence in interview?
    A. Yes and No. The law is rapidly developing and a recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights said this provision made a trial verdict unfair. The decision as to whether to answer questions or not is complex and should be discussed in detail with your solicitor.
    .

    The caution in the UK is generally as follows

    "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence."
    Last edited by scouser; 04-16-2013 at 04:24 PM.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by scouser View Post
    A couple of links with some insight to how remaining silent is treated in the UK.

    http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/bl...-balancing-act

    but it raises the question of when it is in a defendant’s best interest to keep quiet and when exercising the right to silence could potentially do more harm.


    Its always in your best interest to keep your mouth shut...when is it not? Dumb-ass brits.

    Talking criminal cases here ... civil cases, taking the 5th can cause injury to your case.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    This is a test of SCOTUS increasing fetish for foreign law. The UK has already allowed silence as evidence of guilt and abolished double jeopardy. Australia will eventually follow the UK's lead, I'd bet. Why shouldn't SCOTUS follow?
    Awww, you're just baiting us....

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by scouser View Post
    They pulled this stunt several years ago in the UK. Changed the "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used in evidence against you..." part to include (and I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting exactly) something to the effect of "but it could harm your defence if you fail to mention now, something you later rely on in court"
    I better mention my bowel movements for the past 20 yrs ... they may have some relevance ...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Awww, you're just baiting us....
    You got me

  17. #17
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I thought that was already decided as a "no."

    On the tax rules violating the 4A and 5A: If you want those rights restored, support the Fair Tax.
    I could be wrong, as I'm only a student of the constitution and not a scholar, but I believe it's only been decided that you cannot use someone's silence as grounds for probable cause or reasonable suspicion. That said, I couldn't see a scenario that could cause the SCOTUS to allow a person's exercise of their fifth amendment right to in any way be evidense of their guilt. Keep in mind, this is the same supreme court that upheld the Affordable Care Act, so it's anyone's guess what they're gonna say these days.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 05-24-2013 at 08:10 PM.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    The ACA is not the disaster of jurisprudence that some claim re SCOTUS, Kelo is.

    One week after the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. Even as we celebrate our independence from England this July 4th, we find ourselves increasingly enslaved by petty bureaucrats at every level of government. The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates on this holiday based on rebellion against government.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The ACA is not the disaster of jurisprudence that some claim re SCOTUS, Kelo is.
    In re Kelo; http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/28/int...in-reform-law/

    the ruling gives the statute more bite in constraining eminent domain than most experts (myself included) expected it to have.
    Of personal interest for having lived in Fort Trumbull.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    In re Kelo; http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/28/int...in-reform-law/

    Of personal interest for having lived in Fort Trumbull.
    One very distinct difference between Kelo and the Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority decision, The Port Authority is a "political subdivision" of the State of Missouri. In Kelo, the "city" was not attempting to acquire more "city land" to then be developed by private firms, and then to lease the "new land" to other private firms for economic development. The city, in Kelo, used its power of condemnation where the private firm in Kelo had no such power. The Port Authority has condemnation authority granted to it by the state of Missouri.

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=62253

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZC

    SCOTUS blew it big time in Kelo.

    The Missouri Supreme Court got it right, The Port Authority did not come up with a better excuse to meet the requirements and intent of RSMO 523.271 that would have permitted them to condemn the desired parcel of land.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    One very distinct difference between Kelo and the Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority decision, The Port Authority is a "political subdivision" of the State of Missouri.
    Towns, cities and villages, counties, are often political subdivisions of the state in my limited experience.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I refuse to say anything in respect to this thread ... for obvious reasons..

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Towns, cities and villages, counties, are often political subdivisions of the state in my limited experience.
    True, condemnation power applies to towns, cities, villages, counties, and the state. In the Kelo decision, New London was acting on behalf of a private developer. The private developer did not have condemnation power so they "enlisted" New London who did have condemnation power to condemn then transfer the parcel to the private developer.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    SCOTUS to decide if silence can be used as evidence of guilt

    To say that Kelo is a bad decision is analogous to saying that a cancer diagnosis is a bad diagnosis, even though it is true.

    Make no mistake about it, I loathe the net upshot of the Kelo ruling, but it is not wrong. It correctly points out a flaw in the Constitution that We the People need to fix.

    So, instead of complaining about the diagnosis, treat the cancer.

    Work to pass State/local/federal laws that make such seizures, for the purpose of giving/selling the property to another private party, illegal. Work to make changes to State constitutions and the US Constitution.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    One very distinct difference between Kelo and the Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority decision, The Port Authority is a "political subdivision" of the State of Missouri. In Kelo, the "city" was not attempting to acquire more "city land" to then be developed by private firms, and then to lease the "new land" to other private firms for economic development. The city, in Kelo, used its power of condemnation where the private firm in Kelo had no such power. The Port Authority has condemnation authority granted to it by the state of Missouri.

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=62253

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZC

    SCOTUS blew it big time in Kelo.

    The Missouri Supreme Court got it right, The Port Authority did not come up with a better excuse to meet the requirements and intent of RSMO 523.271 that would have permitted them to condemn the desired parcel of land.
    As a point of referenc for my follow-on comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    To say that Kelo is a bad decision is analogous to saying that a cancer diagnosis is a bad diagnosis, even though it is true.

    Make no mistake about it, I loathe the net upshot of the Kelo ruling, but it is not wrong. It correctly points out a flaw in the Constitution that We the People need to fix.

    So, instead of complaining about the diagnosis, treat the cancer.

    Work to pass State/local/federal laws that make such seizures, for the purpose of giving/selling the property to another private party, illegal. Work to make changes to State constitutions and the US Constitution.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Kelo is and was wrong.

    A private developer convinced New London CT to do for them what New London apparently would not do for themselves, and the private developer could not do without New London getting involved. That was the whole point behind the Kelos fighting the condemnation.

    New London would not develop the land themselves so that they would comply with the law and the intent of the law.

    Nope, SCOTUS ruled that the state could do (act as a agent of one private firm and not the other private firm, there by picking winners and losers) for private developers where the private developer could not do for themselves.

    In Missouri we did change the law to prevent a Kelo from occurring in Missouri. If The Port Authority would have stated that the 30.65 acres is required to improve commerce by improving navigation, clearing the river channel for safety and efficiency, reducing costs to operate the port then they would have won. The incidental economic benefit would have been pleasant side effects.

    No, The Port Authority went with higher taxes revenue and more jobs, the Missouri Supreme Court would have none of that. It is right in the 18 page opinion what the judges said The Port Authority should have claimed.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •