Per the AP account of the latest Supreme Court decision, a suspect can not invoke his right to remain silent by doing something so humdrum as remaining silent. No, the suspect has to speak up!
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.
I assume, or at least hope, that it sounds a bit less wacky in the opinion. The story does include this:
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.
If the police felt the suspect was not being utterly unresponsive, then one can see why they would continue the interrogation. Near-silence is not silence.
Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.
Posted by: pc games | August 22, 2010 at 06:12 AM
This is a nice topic for our lawmakers to decide. There will surely be debates relating to this one. Invoking the right and telling the police that you will remain silent is an interesting thing to prove in court. I wonder how lawyers will use this legal excuse in court and practice their criminal procedure applications.
Posted by: Brad Fallon | January 19, 2011 at 08:34 AM
Hi, great video. Can you help me understand why low fat is good? I have read a lot on the sncciee behind low fat vs low carb nutrition trying to get my head around all the confusion. It is sugar that spikes blood sugar levels leading to insulin release (fat stoing hormone). Sat Fat does the opposite. Can you see my confusion? I see low fat products have much more sugar than full fat products
Posted by: Velkis | December 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM