TexasCHLforum.com

A-R wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

A-R wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, if he had not been arrested yet and came in voluntarily - what's the problem? The police don't even have to "read him his rights" until is being arrested. Anything he voluntarily says or doesn't say before arrest is fair game (which is why lawyers generally want you to shut your mouth until they get there).

Here's the rub.... You start talking to police... giving them details... then they ask you a question, the answer to which you perceive could be damaging to you... so you decide not to answer the question....

Because you were talking previously, your silence or refusal to answer a potentially damaging question can be used as evidence against you.... Not what you said, but just the fact that you were talking, then refused to answer the hard question..

Example:
You: "Officer, this guy stuck a knife at my throat and told me he was going to kill me if I didn't hand over my wallet, so I shot him"
Officer: "Did you shoot him because he was black?"
You: ??

It's an incredibly fine line, I agree. But it's my understanding that if you're not charged then 5A doesn't apply because you're not compelled to say a word.

Relevant text of 5A: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

Witnesses are compelled to give testimony under oath, usually in court
Giving a voluntary statement to police is not the same thing

I understand not liking the SCOTUS finding, but not sure I see it violating 5A

In his dissent, Justice Breyer stressed the danger:

the need to categorize Salinas’ silence as based on the Fifth Amendment is supported here by the presence, in full force, of the predicament I discussed earlier, namely that of not forcing Salinas to choose between incrimination through speech and incrimination through silence. That need is also supported by the absence of any special reason that the police had to know, with certainty, whether Salinas was, in fact, relying on the Fifth Amendment—such as whether to doubt that there really was a risk of self-incrimination, see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951), or whether to grant immunity, see Kastigar, 406 U. S., at 448. Given these circumstances, Salinas’ silence was “sufficient to put the [government] on notice of an apparent claim of theprivilege.” Quinn, supra, at 164. That being so, for reasons similar to those given in Griffin, the Fifth Amendment bars the evidence of silence admitted against Salinas and mentioned by the prosecutor.

A-R wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, if he had not been arrested yet and came in voluntarily - what's the problem? The police don't even have to "read him his rights" until is being arrested. Anything he voluntarily says or doesn't say before arrest is fair game (which is why lawyers generally want you to shut your mouth until they get there).