Your silence may be admission of guilt

[unhappycamper]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/18/suspect-silence-admission-guilt-california-court/

State high court puts suspects in Catch-22 situation

Your silence may be admission of guilt
By Steven Greenhut
3:44 p.m. Aug. 18, 2014

SACRAMENTO — Those “Miranda” warnings that police read to suspects following an arrest are, as a California Supreme Court justice recently acknowledged in a dissenting opinion, a ubiquitous part of American culture thanks to TV crime dramas and cop shows.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” But following the California high court’s 4-3 ruling in a vehicular manslaughter case last Thursday, perhaps the Miranda wording ought to change given that anything you previously “didn’t say” could be used against you, as well.

In People v. Tom, California’s Supreme Court justices upheld the prosecution of a man based on the district attorney’s argument that the defendant’s silence was evidence of guilt.

The cop shows make these matters seem simple. A person is arrested. The officer reads the suspect the Miranda wording. Suspects can then clam up and wait for an attorney. In real life, though, these matters can become more complicated and legalistic.

--

Thought crimes? Orwell was correct.

[snappyturtle]

1. OMG!

[rock]

2. On a related note: my understanding of taking the 5th is

that the jury may draw conclusions based on your silence, which sounds odd to me as I wonder what the fifth is supposed to do for you?

[antiquie]

3. WTF!

A key element of the gross-negligence charges — the allegation that Tom behaved without regard for the well-being of others — was that he never asked police officers about the condition of Wong and her children.

[tech3149]

4. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Never assume that anything you say to police can not be turned against you. They are trying their best to find any indication of guilt or less than ultimate transparency.