Court: Silence can be used against suspects

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Court: Silence can be used against suspects
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press | August 15, 2014 | Updated: August 15, 2014 5:35pm

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.

Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.

Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.

Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Court-Silence-may-sometimes-show-guilt-5691179.php

[padfun]

1. OK, but what part of the silence leads to guilt?

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is scum for what he did, but for the rest of our citizenry, what damage will be done if we get arrested and remain silent?

[msongs]

2. another court violates a person's rights to free speech or choice to not speak. BS ruling nt

[Journeyman]

3. "If freedom of speech is to have any practical purpose, it must include the right to remain silent…

and to keep to himself those opinions and associations a person would prefer not to share with their neighbors."

~Ring Lardner, Jr.

[L0oniX]

4. RIP 5th.

[groundloop]

5. IMO we might be reading too much into this ruling

The linked story doesn't seem to convey all the facts surrounding this case. All it really says for sure is that Richard Tom didn't ask about the welfare of the family whose car he'd plowed into. It's unclear if he refused to speak altogether. The prosecutor is claiming that him not showing concern for the victims (before he was read his rights) is a sign of guilt (which I find kind of a stretch).

[cstanleytech]

6. Agreed. I'm not sure why the judge didnt admonish the prosecutor during the trial for doing that

and instruct the jury to ignore it.

[alp227]

7. try this local source

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Suspect-s-silence-allowed-as-evidence-at-trial-5689874.php

[on point]

11. Maybe he knew his rights before being read them.......

[SoapBox]

8. ...more sanctioned grasping at straws.

They had no other/note enough other evidence for some kind of conviction? They needed this ruling?

Seems like crap (and yes, he's scum but this ruling sucks).

[Shemp Howard]

9. Not as bad as I thought

After reading the article's title, I assumed that this involved silence during questioning by police. That silence is, well, sacred in this country.

This is something altogether different. This is more of an "attitude" silence, something that's part of a suspect's demeanor. I actually think the California Supreme Court got it right here. However, it is a near thing and I might change my mind four times in the next few minutes.

[politicat]

10. Agreed. I see both sides. Affirmatively invoking 5th vs invoking a right against a ? never asked.

I've seen too many people on probation or parole because they didn't know or understand their 5A rights and they were "informally" questioned before the Miranda card came out. The demeanor point smacks of mind-reading and speculation on the part of the police and prosecutor. (Because people under great stress, such as after a bad car accident, are always so rational and empathetic... )

On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, the only things anyone should ever say to any cop are
1) am I under arrest?
2) am I free to go?
3) what's your name and badge number?
4) I want a lawyer.

(Not necessarily in that order.)

But years in public mental health doing court-ordered made me cynical.

[RobinA]

24. Soooo...

Not having the court-approved attitude is now evidence of guilt? This is the end.

[valerief]

12. Just because the asshole murderer may not have intended to kill other people but did anyway due to

his reckless behavior doesn't mean the law has a right to make him care about his victims--or else!

Does this now mean we can put most of Congress in prison because they don't care about 99% of Americans? If so, I'm all for this ruling. Otherwise, it's shit.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Showed his guilt of what? Being heartless? Was he on trial for being an asshole or for

driving in a reckless manner? If they were claiming he ran into them deliberately to kill them, then silence would have hurt their case (I.e it would have been better for prosecutors if he kept asking "Did I kill 'em? Did I kill 'em?&quot .

The man needs a better defense attorney. A concussion could render him mute. So could post traumatic stress. It can change personality.

[LeftyMom]

14. Failure to ask the cops a question shouldn't be held against you, because they are permitted to lie.

Wait for your lawyer, ask your lawyer.

[woo me with science]

17. Good post. nt

[Throd]

15. The new Miranda: "Everything you don't say can and will be used against you in a court of law"

[woo me with science]

18. +1

[Ikonoklast]

16. This will go higher.

There is either the right to remain silent, or not. How can *not*? asking a question imply guilt?

Insurance companies tell their clients implicitly that inquiring about the health of the other party in an injury accident can be used against you in court.

You say nothing, period.

If Silence = Guilt is allowed to stand, we are all fucked.

[woo me with science]

19. We are ruled by fascists now. The Constitution

is just a goddamned piece of paper.

[Ikonoklast]

21. Extra-judicial punishment has been the norm for years now.

Posse Comitatus has been circumvented, law enforcement is rapidly being turned into a militarized occupying force.

Intimidating citizenry with overwhelming shows of military force in order to keep them from freely exercising their rights is now being enforced because it is not being accepted.

The PTB are making a huge mistake, this is not going to end well.

[woo me with science]

20. Say goodbye to more of the Bill of Rights.

[TheKentuckian]

22. The remark should have been struck and grounds for an appeal. Horrible decision.

[yurbud]

23. oy.

[blkmusclmachine]

25. Terrible news. Another right to go away soon.

[Wolf Frankula]

27. The 4th Amendment died when the 'Good Faith' Exception was added.

The 5th is now dying and the 1st is ill. I look for the 2th to be the only living part of the Bill of Rights in a few years. That's because the gun makers want to sell guns.

Wolf

[defacto7]

26. Another bruise

on US justice. Maybe a bludgeoning.

[woo me with science]

28. kick