Pre-Miranda silence Can be used by prosecutors

[finnbow]

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 Genovevo Salinas, 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.

Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.

The high court upheld that decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...25d_story.html

It seems to me that the SCOTUS is hereby saying that it is the Miranda warning itself that conveys your rights, not the Constitution's 5th Amendment. I gotta disagree with this one and side with the 4 justices who dissented.

[merrylander]

You were expecting intelligence from the Roberts court?

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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 Genovevo Salinas, 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.

Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.

The high court upheld that decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...25d_story.html

It seems to me that the SCOTUS is hereby saying that it is the Miranda warning itself that conveys your rights, not the Constitution's 5th Amendment. I gotta disagree with this one and side with the 4 justices who dissented.

I'm with you on that.

[merrylander]

Exactly because any halfway intelligent person should be familiar with the 5th and not need Miranda, so the idiot boys of the Roberts court have just torn up the BOR.