MKEgal
Regular Member
.
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."
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/2013/01/11/us-usa-court-silence-idUSBRE90A13P20130111
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?
.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.
"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."
A couple of links with some insight to how remaining silent is treated in the UK.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blogs/going-no-comment-a-delicate-balancing-act
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?
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"
You got meAwww, you're just baiting us....
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.
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
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.In re Kelo; http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/28/in...e-states-post-kelo-eminent-domain-reform-law/
Of personal interest for having lived in Fort Trumbull.
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.Towns, cities and villages, counties, are often political subdivisions of the state in my limited experience.