This is a topic that came up in the Deedy trial thread, but I feel it's important for all members.

Quote from: Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra
First rule when you are the prime suspect or person of interest in an investigation:  NEVER volunteer information or provide evidence.   Ask for a lawyer, and wait quietly until he arrives.
Never ceases to amaze me how so many people fall for the lie: if you have nothing to hide, you should cooperate fully with an investigation.  & the reverse:  by not cooperating, you are admitting guilt.
Right to not incriminate yourself is there for a good reason.  Using it is not an admission of guilt in any form.

Quote from: Funtimes
Using it, without verbally stating you are using it, is an admission of guilt.

Quote from: Kingkeoni
How?

Quote from: Funtimes
Thank your conservative justices.  You must verbally invoke your right to remain silent.   This is a recent case out of SCOTUS. ( Supreme Court of the US )
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak

Quote from: Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra
This makes no sense! 

(1) the 5th A protects you against self-incrimination (right not to testify against oneself),  Once Mirandized, you have the RIGHT to remain silent.  Nothing about "You have the right to remain silent ONLY IF you invoke the 5th.  Otherwise you're guilty for being silent."

(2) You can't invoke the 5th unless you can be charged with a crime (plea deals for immunity are intended for this very purpose).   Unless you see yourself being interrogated or investigated, you have no grounds to plea the 5th (no charges being filed against you as far as you can see). 

(3) Since "Anything you say can & WILL be used against you in court", and now we find out "the 5th won't protect you if you choose not to speak to interrogators unless you say 'I PLEA THE 5th'", this creates a situation where every person, innocent or guilty MUST ALWAYS invoke their right to counsel BEFORE SAYING A WORD.

"Officer, I intend to cooperate fully with your investigation.  However, I feel it is in my best interest that I call my lawyer before answering any questions."

Quote from Funtimes:
Miranda is another case that most people don't understand either.  Just because you are arrested doesn't mean you get Miranda rights.  If I have enough evidence against you, I can let you talk all day.   Also, just because I can't use it as evidence, doesn't mean I can't use it to counter your statements later.

Chris, correct me if I'm wrong.

You must specifically, verbally invoke your right to remain silent ( 5th Amendment ) for your silence not to be used against you, per recent Supreme Court decision.

I think if you're not arrested, you should have the right to get up and leave.
If your detained,  ( 48 hours no charge rule ) you should have the right to invoke the 5th Amendment.

Quote from: Funtimes [/i]
Using it, without verbally stating you are using it, is an admission of guilt.

Quote from: Kingkeoni
How?

Quote from: Funtimes
Thank your conservative justices.  You must verbally invoke your right to remain silent.   This is a recent case out of SCOTUS.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak


This is not true.
After reading the case that initiated this Supreme Court ruling, the person in question had answered all of the officers questions except one. Then after the question he refused to answer he answered subsequent questions.
Based on his body language and refusal to answer that one question, the court ruled that his silence was seen as an admission of guilt.

Nowhere does the ruling state that silence without invoking the 5th amendment is an admission of guilt.

Nowhere does the ruling state that silence without invoking the 5th amendment is an admission of guilt.

But it can be used against you.

.

 

The circumstances of the Supreme Court Case are based on timing.  The suspect cooperated by answering all the investigator's questions, thereby waiving the 5th A implicitly.  Once he decided to use the 5th A to shield him from self-incrimination, he would then have to verbally invoke it..  Otherwise, the cops have no way to know which answers (body language tells, etc) are able to be used or not.

I see the reason for the decision. 

So, the simple answer is, when asked by the COPS if you want to answer their questions FROM THE BEGINNING, just say, "Not without my lawyer." 

However, if you were cooperative and helpful in the beginning, be aware anything you say or do can be used as evidence.  Once you are in that boat, if you decide the direction of the questioning is bad for you, you MUST ask for counsel and/or invoke the 5th verbally. 

Do it BEFORE looking down at your shoes, shifting nervously in the chair, or snorting water through your nose at the interrogator!   

The circumstances of the Supreme Court Case are based on timing.  The suspect cooperated by answering all the investigator's questions, thereby waiving the 5th A implicitly.  Once he decided to use the 5th A to shield him from self-incrimination, he would then have to verbally invoke it..  Otherwise, the cops have no way to know which answers (body language tells, etc) are able to be used or not.

I see the reason for the decision. 

So, the simple answer is, when asked by the COPS if you want to answer their questions FROM THE BEGINNING, just say, "Not without my lawyer." 

However, if you were cooperative and helpful in the beginning, be aware anything you say or do can be used as evidence.  Once you are in that boat, if you decide the direction of the questioning is bad for you, you MUST ask for counsel and/or invoke the 5th verbally. 

Do it BEFORE looking down at your shoes, shifting nervously in the chair, or snorting water through your nose at the interrogator!   

I can see the reasoning behind the decision as well.  The Fifth Amendment protects you from being a witness against yourself, if you are manifestly guilty of a crime it's not a get out of jail free card.  However, being innocent is no longer the same thing as not having committed a crime; selling unpasteurized milk across state lines is a felony.  It's therefore entirely possible for a person who is completely innocent of wrongdoing to be in violation of the law.  On this basis I interact with police as little as humanly possible, and pretty much never without my lawyer. 

My ex-wife's burglar alarm went off one day while she was gone and she told the police that someone had gone through her stuff.  I hadn't been anywhere near her house at the time, I had actually been at Crossfit with my girlfriend and about 30 other people, but you bet your sweet ass I told the detective I wanted my lawyer before I answered any questions!!

Quote from: Funtimes [/i]
Using it, without verbally stating you are using it, is an admission of guilt.

Quote from: Kingkeoni
How?

Quote from: Funtimes
Thank your conservative justices.  You must verbally invoke your right to remain silent.   This is a recent case out of SCOTUS.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak


This is not true.
After reading the case that initiated this Supreme Court ruling, the person in question had answered all of the officers questions except one. Then after the question he refused to answer he answered subsequent questions.
Based on his body language and refusal to answer that one question, the court ruled that his silence was seen as an admission of guilt.

Nowhere does the ruling state that silence without invoking the 5th amendment is an admission of guilt.

http://www.cato.org/blog/salinas-v-texas?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29

The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constitutional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government. That is the profound error in the decision. As the dissenters noted, in the circumstances of the case, it was evident what Salinas was doing. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has complicated the law for persons who are the most vulnerable–persons who lack education, persons who do not speak English very well, persons who may suffer from mental problems, and persons who may be under the influence of alcohol. This is a bad day for the Bill of Rights.

So yes, you are correct that it didn't say remaining silent was an admission of guilt. Rather what the ruling allows is for prosecutors to tell the trier of fact (judge or jury) that the defendant's silence means he guilty, or cast other aspersions on the fact the defendant chose to remain silent, whereas prior to the ruling, because there wasn't the "clarity" this ruling offered, prosecutors would steer well clear of such actions for fear of fatally tainting their case.