Supreme Court to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt

• Cleveland Buck

  

  The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial.
  
  
  Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston.
  
  
  Salinas voluntarily answered police questions for about an hour, but he became silent when asked whether shotgun shells found at the crime scene would match a gun found at his home. An officer testified that Salinas demonstrated signs of deception.
  
  
  Ballistics testing later matched the gun to the casings left at the murder scene.
  
  
  Salinas was charged in 1993 but evaded arrest until his capture in 2007.
  
  
  His first trial ended in a mistrial. At his second trial, Texas was able to introduce evidence of his silence in the police station, over his lawyer's objections.
  
  
  Salinas' lawyer argued that his client deserved a Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, even though he had not been under arrest or read his rights under the landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona.
  
  
  Last April, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but noted that federal appeals courts are split as to whether "pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt."
  
  
  Texas opposed the appeal, saying that the protection against compulsory self-incrimination is irrelevant when a suspect is under no compulsion to speak, as Salinas was because he was not under arrest and was speaking voluntarily. It also said that any error was harmless.
  
  
  A decision is expected by the end of June.
  
  
  The decision is Salinas v. Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-246.
  

  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-court-silence-idUSBRE90A13P20130111
  
  It's a good thing we have the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution means. I don't think this was clear enough:
  

  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• queencitybuckeye

  Cleveland Buck;1371168 wrote:
  It's a good thing we have the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution means.

  Isn't that exactly their job?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  queencitybuckeye;1371191 wrote:Isn't that exactly their job?

  No.
  
  The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
  
  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
• queencitybuckeye

  Based on that description, the answer is indeed "yes".
• Cleveland Buck

  

  queencitybuckeye;1371224 wrote:Based on that description, the answer is indeed "yes".

  Under this constitution means just that, according to what this constitution says. Nowhere does it give the judicial branch the authority to override this constitution.
• queencitybuckeye

  Cleveland Buck;1371240 wrote:Under this constitution means just that, according to what this constitution says. Nowhere does it give the judicial branch the authority to override this constitution.

  Nor did I say any such thing. You're one of those "the Air Force is unconstitutional" wackadoodles, aren't you?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  queencitybuckeye;1371244 wrote:Nor did I say any such thing. You're one of those "the Air Force is unconstitutional" wackadoodles, aren't you?

  You said the Supreme Court is supposed to decide what the constitution means. The law says they are supposed to rule according to what it says. If those are different things, then you did suggest they should have the authority to override the constitution. Why does following what the law says make someone a "wackadoodle"?
• queencitybuckeye

  Cleveland Buck;1371251 wrote:You said the Supreme Court is supposed to decide what the constitution means. The law says they are supposed to rule according to what it says.

  What it says often (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) isn't enough to determine what it means. That is, unless you believe, for example, that any law regulating the ownership of any weapon is unconstitutional. It was written in large part to require interpretation.
  
  Whose job is it to determine whose rights are to be upheld when the rights of parties are in direct conflict?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  queencitybuckeye;1371260 wrote:What it says often (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) isn't enough to determine what it means. That is, unless you believe, for example, that any law regulating the ownership of any weapon is unconstitutional. It was written in large part to require interpretation.

  Well, it is unconstitutional. The second amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is a reason for that. The second amendment wasn't included to allow people to have weapons for hunting. It was included to recognize that the people were born with the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from any assailant, including the government. I don't know what makes you think that is up for interpretation. We can read what they meant when they wrote the document.
  

  queencitybuckeye;1371260 wrote:Whose job is it to determine whose rights are to be upheld when the rights of parties are in direct conflict?

  According to the constitution, the judicial should rule according to the laws of the United States, provided they are under "this constitution", so surely there would some law to address whatever situation you are talking about.
• queencitybuckeye

  Cleveland Buck;1371287 wrote:Well, it is unconstitutional. The second amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is a reason for that. The second amendment wasn't included to allow people to have weapons for hunting. It was included to recognize that the people were born with the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from any assailant, including the government. I don't know what makes you think that is up for interpretation. We can read what they meant when they wrote the document.

  One can restrict the ownership of certain weapons without one's rights under the 2nd being infringed.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  queencitybuckeye;1371293 wrote:One can restrict the ownership of certain weapons without one's rights under the 2nd being infringed.

  Ok. Because you said so? Because you changed or ignored the definition of "infringed"?
• queencitybuckeye

  Cleveland Buck;1371287 wrote:
  According to the constitution, the judicial should rule according to the laws of the United States, provided they are under "this constitution", so surely there would some law to address whatever situation you are talking about.

  An example, the wackadoodle element would almost certainly declare that a gag order imposed on the coverage of a trial is unconstitutional. On the other hand, say there's a trial where there is no question that the defendant's right to a fair trial is clearly impossible without a gag order. Further, there is no statutory law that speaks to the situation. Bottom line, someone must be denied rights. Who decides?
• queencitybuckeye

  Cleveland Buck;1371298 wrote:Ok. Because you said so? Because you changed or ignored the definition of "infringed"?

  Don't need to. The amendment says "arms", not "any and all arms". You're the one changing what it says, not me.
  
  If a law says you can't own gun "X", that doesn't remotely mean you've lost your right to bear arms.
• WebFire

  I plead the 5th.
• jhay78

  

  The sad part is there are probably four stone-cold-lead-pipe locks on that Court who will rule that the 5th Amendment is no longer needed, along with the 2nd, the 10th, etc, etc.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  queencitybuckeye;1371302 wrote:An example, the wackadoodle element would almost certainly declare that a gag order imposed on the coverage of a trial is unconstitutional. On the other hand, say there's a trial where there is no question that the defendant's right to a fair trial is clearly impossible without a gag order. Further, there is no statutory law that speaks to the situation. Bottom line, someone must be denied rights. Who decides?

  It's not that difficult. Everyone's rights are limited by the equal rights of others. The court can handle something like that. That is a far cry from "interpreting" that the 2nd amendment does not really mean "shall not be infringed", or that the 5th amendment does not really mean "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
• queencitybuckeye

  Cleveland Buck;1371320 wrote:It's not that difficult. Everyone's rights are limited by the equal rights of others. The court can handle something like that. That is a far cry from "interpreting" that the 2nd amendment does not really mean "shall not be infringed", or that the 5th amendment does not really mean "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

  What's simple is the simpleminded notion that "shall not be infringed" means the same thing as "this right is unlimited and without exception". They don't mean the same thing, not even close.
• gut

  So I wonder how this would play if you didn't refuse to answer their questions, but just followed the age-old advice not to answer their questions without a lawyer?
• Mulva

  

  I wasn't aware that you needed to be under arrest for Constitutional rights to apply. The whole argument is ridiculous. The 5th amendment doesn't apply because he was voluntarily speaking, but he can't voluntarily stop without it being introduced as evidence of guilt? Even if the 5th amendment doesn't apply, I fail to see how silence equates to substantive evidence of guilt. Isn't that entirely speculative?
• queencitybuckeye

  Mulva;1371486 wrote:I wasn't aware that you needed to be under arrest for Constitutional rights to apply. The whole argument is ridiculous. The 5th amendment doesn't apply because he was voluntarily speaking, but he can't voluntarily stop without it being introduced as evidence of guilt? Even if the 5th amendment doesn't apply, I fail to see how silence equates to substantive evidence of guilt. Isn't that entirely speculative?

  Like most evidence, couldn't a jury be trusted to decide how much weight his non-answer answer should receive?
• Mulva

  

  queencitybuckeye;1371506 wrote:Like most evidence, couldn't a jury be trusted to decide how much weight his non-answer answer should receive?

  No, I don't think a jury can be trusted to speculate on a speculation.
• gut

  Not answering a question, especially without a lawyer present, doesn't and shouldnt mean a damn thing. I consider that smart, guilty or innocent.
  
  But I wonder if this isn't more a question of refusing to answer as probable cause to make an arrest/detain. That's much more of a gray area, IMO.