SCOTUS: Silence before arrest will be used against you

[MechAg94]

From reading only the portions quoted above, it occurs to me that the problem isn't with remaining silent, but with allowing investigators to give unqualified opinions of anything they want, without rebuttal. This opens the door for unscrupulous investigators to give free rein to imagination and recite the facts as they wish they had happened.

That is what I was thinking. Cops already do this to some extent.

[Charles L. Cotton]

From reading only the portions quoted above, it occurs to me that the problem isn't with remaining silent, but with allowing investigators to give unqualified opinions of anything they want, without rebuttal. This opens the door for unscrupulous investigators to give free rein to imagination and recite the facts as they wish they had happened.

Precisely. This is open season for LEOs who frequently make false allegations of evidence during interviews with subjects. The argument for this tactic is that COPs can lie to a suspect to get them to tell the truth. (SCOTUST has ruled this is fine.) Unfortunately, this isn't always the case, but that's the theory. This is why any rational person will now respond to the first question by a LEO by invoking their 5th Amendment right to remain silent and then not say another word. What a horrible decision!!

In civil courts in Texas (and probably elsewhere), this is an old doctrine that a person's failure to respond/deny the type of allegation a reasonable person would have denied can be used against them in a court as an admission against interest. It's not always easy to invoke, but the important point is that it is available only in civil courts, not criminal courts! That pesky 5th Amendment prevented it's use . . . until now.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

From reading only the portions quoted above, it occurs to me that the problem isn't with remaining silent, but with allowing investigators to give unqualified opinions of anything they want, without rebuttal. This opens the door for unscrupulous investigators to give free rein to imagination and recite the facts as they wish they had happened.

Precisely. This is open season for LEOs who frequently make false allegations of evidence during interviews with subjects. The argument for this tactic is that COPs can lie to a suspect to get them to tell the truth. (SCOTUST has ruled this is fine.) Unfortunately, this isn't always the case, but that's the theory. This is why any rational person will now respond to the first question by a LEO by invoking their 5th Amendment right to remain silent and then not say another word. What a horrible decision!!

In civil courts in Texas (and probably elsewhere), this is an old doctrine that a person's failure to respond/deny the type of allegation a reasonable person would have denied can be used against them in a court as an admission against interest. It's not always easy to invoke, but the important point is that it is available only in civil courts, not criminal courts! That pesky 5th Amendment prevented it's use . . . until now.

Chas.

Charles, quick question...... until now, has it been in any way a liability at trial to invoke the 5th anywhere along the process? As in, "he/she invoked his/her 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves; therefore he/she must be guilty." I have perceived a tendency among some people to interpret an invokation of the 5th as if the subject had said, "yeah, I'm guilty, but I'm not going to help you prove it!"

[JALLEN]

There is almost always a jury instruction dealing with failure to testify, right to remain silent etc, no inferences maybe drawn, not evidence, etc. It can be expanded upon if the actual refusal takes place in open court, to meet the circumstances.

My worry is not with investigators lying to defendants in the interview but on the stand, where they will have an unrebutted swing at the defendant, to describe his demeanor while silence, cast aspersions, play winky, winky, nod, nod games, etc. I have had the disquieting experience of police officers on the witness stand, under oath, recounting events as they wished they had happened, and was fortunate to be able to introduce evidence showing their testimony was knowingly false. These guys were lucky the judge had more of a sense of humor about it than could reasonably be expected, something about "perjury is the lubricant of the judicial system" etc. Knowing the defendant is unlikely to take the stand, for prior felonies that could then come in, or otherwise, they are free to do and say just about anything they want, with little risk.

[sjfcontrol]

I'm starting to think that some of these SCOTUS judges have been compromised.

You mean like someone has collected their metadata, and are using information about who they called, and when, and for what duration to "request" they vote in a particular manner?

Humm, who would have that kind of power...

More like "pod people" as in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

[anygunanywhere]

(Anygunanywhere searching high and low, frustrated.)

WHERE IS THAT REBOOT SWITCH!!



Anygunanywhere