Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   New Miranda warning: "You're not under arrest and you're free to go at any time, therefore your refusal to speak with us now can be used at trial as evidence that you're guilty"   (nytimes.com) divider line 38
    More: Asinine, false confessions, self-incriminations, Fifth Amendment, oral arguments, guilty, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals  
•       •       •

16518 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2013 at 3:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-21 02:56:39 PM  
8 votes:
And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...
2013-04-21 03:55:04 PM  
6 votes:
Once again, don't tell the cops ANYTHING even if you're innocent.  Nothing in those miranda rights states that what you say can be used for you in court.
2013-04-21 03:54:13 PM  
5 votes:
I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?
2013-04-21 04:14:52 PM  
4 votes:

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


It's no surprise that the neofascist liberals at the New York times are advocating for stripping the 5th Amendment. They also strongly oppose the 2nd Amendment and believe the 1st Amendment should only apply to some (them) and not others (the NRA.) And after Obama was elected, they curbed their 4th Amendment outrage editorials. Not much on warrantless wiretapping from them these days - can't be too critical of Dear Leader. The New York Times editors want a world where individual citizens have absolutely no basic rights and all power is concentrated with the geniuses in government, in other words, a fascist state. Some of us have a problem with that.

Happy now?
2013-04-21 04:09:58 PM  
4 votes:
Apparently subby doesn't understand that you don't need to be Mirandarized to be placed under Arrest or subpoenaed to face charges.

Miranda only protects against self criminalization, much like pleading the 5th.  If they're not going to use his own testimony against him, they never need to Miranda him.

Seeing as they have video of him dropping the bomb and it exploding, I doubt they much care what he has to say besides for intelligence.
2013-04-21 03:57:16 PM  
4 votes:
I've been advised by an attorney DON'T TALK TO POLICE
2013-04-21 05:05:34 PM  
3 votes:
static.ddmcdn.com

"Do you confess?"
"No!"
"Guilty!"

"Do you confess?"
"Yes!"
"Guilty!"

"Do you confess?"
[Remains silent]
"Guilty!"
2013-04-21 04:23:09 PM  
3 votes:

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


I'm pro-second amendment, and a few days ago, here on Fark, I made the comment of on if we got rid of the Second Amendment, what protects the rest of the Bill of Rights from getting the very same treatment?  Because it seems logical to me that if you can get rid of one, you can get rid of them all, something that I am very opposed to.  Someone responded to my comment by saying that there is no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and the rest of the Constitution, and this Farker continued to tell me that the Constitution needs to have the ability to grow and if needed, to restrict our rights lined out in the Bill of Rights.

Don't blame the pro-Second Amendment people for only focusing on one aspect of the Constitution and thinking that they want to get rid of the rest or even care if the rest goes away.  That's not 100% true.  I don't own a gun, I have considered it, but there is a good chance that I never will.  The reason why I support the Second Amendment is because if it goes away, if it gets repealed, then what makes the rest of the Bill of Rights so important that it can't be repealed?  Every right we have in the Bill of Rights needs to be protected and viewed in the light that gives the PEOPLE the most freedom, not in the view that gives the GOVERNMENT the most control.  Get rid of our rights to own guns, see how fast we lose our right to follow the religion that we choose to believe in.  See how fast we go to prison for speaking out against the party in power.  See how fast we can no longer plead the fifth.  This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a real issue.  Once you create the precedent to do something, you open the door for similar things to happen in the future.
2013-04-21 04:21:45 PM  
3 votes:

HairBolus: Not to mention the right-wing war cheerleaders who want to declare the surviving bomber an enemy combatant so they can torture him because that will make him really sorry.


Yeah, thats farked up.

Lindsey Graham is a boot licking fascist.  This kid is a citizen, he will be tried by our justice system.  Besides, making exceptions only elevates these worthless POS.  They're no different than gang bangers and mass murderers.  Treat them the same, and don't give them recruiting material.
2013-04-21 04:55:44 PM  
2 votes:

heypete: doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a gun owner and a strong believer in all rights, not just those explicitly protected by the Constitution.

/member of the NRA, ACLU, and EFF.


Count yourself as a member of a proud minority.  I'm right there with you.

My point, which (judging by the responses) is that the binning of political ideologies is at the heart of the overall erosion of our Constitutional rights. The consolidation of all positions held into two distinct and partisan bins IS the problem.  Want the NRA to support your "guy" in congress?  Congratulations, you voted for the dude that wants to restrict gay marriage and extraordinary rendition.  Want to do something about climate change?  Congratulations, gun ownership is now harder.

Effectively, your "one thing" may very well cost you those other ideals you hold dear if they don't fit into the same bundle of ideological views.
2013-04-21 04:33:04 PM  
2 votes:
There is nothing you can say to the police that can help you.  Keep your mouth shut.  Yes, even if you are innocent.
2013-04-21 04:17:22 PM  
2 votes:
Not to mention the right-wing war cheerleaders who want to declare the surviving bomber an enemy combatant so they can torture him because that will make him really sorry.
2013-04-21 04:15:57 PM  
2 votes:

cptjeff: Frosty_Icehole: Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

I'm not even sure it's a legal requirement, akin to the myth that police must state they are indeed police if asked.

It's a legal requirement that police have to inform you of your rights upon arrest. Has been since the Supreme Court said it was in... drumroll please... Miranda v. Arizona.


Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

That would be the 'not clinically insane and trying to strip people of their constitutional rights because we don't like them very much' interpretation, yes.


Wrong, it's a legal requirement that police advise you of your Miranda Rights upon two conditions 1) in custody and 2) interrogation.  You may be arrested, without interrogation, and the police need not read you your rights.  Period.  Once again, the media and television have made people think that if the officer doesn't immediately read you your rights, or he's not dramatically stating them as you'r ebeing handcuffed, that you' can't be tried or convicted.

In this case, the person was free to leave.  He was not detained, he was under no obligation to ansewr questions, and went willingly to the police station.  He answered every question up to that point, yet when they got to one where he knew his goose would be cooked, he remained silent.  There is literally no reason why a Prosecuting attorney whouldn't be allowed to bring that up in trial.  Especially when there is a landslide of evidence burying the defendant.

Now, if it were a situation where no questions were answered at all and he said "i want an attorney" there are already rulings detailing that you can't use a person's refusal to testify against him.  in fact, that's in a very specific jury instruction in every single jury trial I've ever seen.

This is a non-issue.  Even if the court throws out that part of the record, there's STILL overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
2013-04-21 04:08:29 PM  
2 votes:

Frosty_Icehole: Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

I'm not even sure it's a legal requirement, akin to the myth that police must state they are indeed police if asked.


as long as I still get my one free phone call.

and now I have to hit people over the head... YOU DO NOT HAVE THE 'RIGHT' TO ONE FREE PHONE CALL!!!

that is a Hollywood fabrication. if you are arrested and the police allow you a phone call, that is a COURTESY that they are extending to you, not a 'right' of yours.
2013-04-21 04:04:27 PM  
2 votes:
Don't answer any questions and or make any statements. Request an attorney. Until attorney arrives "I have been instructed not to answer any questions or make a statement without my attorney present". If pressed "Please direct that question to my attorney".
2013-04-21 04:00:29 PM  
2 votes:
lets not forget this part of the story....

 "A ballistics analysis later matched the shotgun with the casings left at the murder scene. Subsequent investigation led police to a witness who stated that the appellant had admitted murdering the victims."

while the concept needs to be debated, the guilt of the scumbag in questionshould not be
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-21 02:22:29 PM  
2 votes:

Hardly a new principle. The Massachusetts model jury instruction on the general subject dates back at least to the 1980s:

ADMISSION BY SILENCE

You have heard testimony suggesting that [speaker] allegedly (told the defendant) (said in the defendant's presence and hearing) that __________ . You have also heard testimony that the defendant allegedly (offered no response or explanation) (replied by saying that __________ ).

The Commonwealth is suggesting that the defendant's (silence) (reply was evasive or ambiguous and therefore it) amounts to a silent admission by the defendant that the accusation was true. If you believe the testimony, you will have to decide whether or not that is a fair conclusion.

Sometimes, when a direct accusation against a person is made to his face, you might naturally expect him to deny or correct the accusation if he is innocent of it. But that is not always true. Under some circumstances, it might not be reasonable to expect a routine denial.

You must be cautious in this area to be sure that any conclusions you draw are fair ones. First of all, you must be certain that the defendant heard any accusation and understood its significance.

You must also be satisfied that it is a fair conclusion that a person would always speak up in a situation like this if he were innocent. After all, no one is required to respond to every negative comment that is made about him. And there may be other factors in a given situation, apart from guilt or innocence with respect to the particular accusation, that might explain why a person did not choose to respond.

On the other hand, some accusations may be of such a nature, or come from such a source, that it may be natural to expect an innocent person to protest when such an accusation is made to his face if there are no other explanations for his silence.

If you accept the testimony about the defendant's alleged (silence) (reply), then you will have to look to your common sense and experience to determine how to interpret the defendant's (silence) (answer) in this particular case.

If you conclude that the defendant did silently admit that the accusation was true, you may give that whatever significance you feel it is fairly entitled to receive in your deliberations. If you are uncertain whether the defendant's alleged (silence) (reply) amounted to a silent admission, then you should disregard it entirely and go on to consider the other evidence in this case.
2013-04-21 01:36:06 PM  
2 votes:
Wow, that's egregious. The solution of course is to never answer a single question, so you are consistently.
2013-04-22 05:23:18 AM  
1 votes:

Sgt.Zim: As a gun owner (NRA member, instructor, standing offer to first-time shooters that the expenses of the first trip are on me) that believes in all ten Amendments, I occasionally have very difficult conversations with my allies about how we're screwing ourselves.

Sadly, they usually don't see it.


You know, there are actually more than that.
2013-04-21 06:32:20 PM  
1 votes:

Great Janitor: doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...

I'm pro-second amendment, and a few days ago, here on Fark, I made the comment of on if we got rid of the Second Amendment, what protects the rest of the Bill of Rights from getting the very same treatment?  Because it seems logical to me that if you can get rid of one, you can get rid of them all, something that I am very opposed to.  Someone responded to my comment by saying that there is no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and the rest of the Constitution, and this Farker continued to tell me that the Constitution needs to have the ability to grow and if needed, to restrict our rights lined out in the Bill of Rights.

Don't blame the pro-Second Amendment people for only focusing on one aspect of the Constitution and thinking that they want to get rid of the rest or even care if the rest goes away.  That's not 100% true.  I don't own a gun, I have considered it, but there is a good chance that I never will.  The reason why I support the Second Amendment is because if it goes away, if it gets repealed, then what makes the rest of the Bill of Rights so important that it can't be repealed?  Every right we have in the Bill of Rights needs to be protected and viewed in the light that gives the PEOPLE the most freedom, not in the view that gives the GOVERNMENT the most control.  Get rid of our rights to own guns, see how fast we lose our right to follow the religion that we choose to believe in.  See how fast we go to prison for speaking out against the party in power.  See how fast we can no longer plead the fifth.  This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a real issue.  Once you create the precedent to do something, you open the door for similar things to happen in the future.


I couldn't have said it better myself. The Constitution was written as a framework of only what the federal government was allowed to do. If it wasn't in there, it was reserved to the states and the people to do. There was a process put into place to add things to the Constitution, and it required a rather hefty majority of both the Congress AND the people/states to approve it. The Commerce clause has been stretched and warped to cover anything, which is beyond the initial intent. There have been so many sketchy interpretations that give the federal government more power than it ever should have had. It disgusts me.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you on the removal of one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights leading to an erosion of the rest. I truly believe they are all inextricably linked to each other, and if one falls, so do the rest, likely in short order.
2013-04-21 06:00:02 PM  
1 votes:

MrEricSir: cman


Sock Ruh Tease: cman


Mock26: cman


Sock Ruh Tease: cman


My apologies. I made an assumption that this was about the Boston Bombers due to the headline. You are correct that I am in the wrong on this.
2013-04-21 05:54:00 PM  
1 votes:
Nobody is convicted of a DUI crime for refusing an alcohol test, breath or blood.  Driver's licenses are suspended for refusals.  Suspension hearings are civil matters separate from criminal proceedings.  "Refusal penalties"  may be added to license reinstatement fees, along with other onerous conditions to restore the driving privilege.

The consequences are heavy but do not include a criminal  conviction or prison sentence.
2013-04-21 05:47:21 PM  
1 votes:

letrole: If you're such a paranoid nutbag that your first and only instinct is to treat normal police procedures with suspicion and contempt, then you probably have something in your seedy past that very well explains your behaviour.


Or maybe you have past experience with police that makes you feel that way.
2013-04-21 05:02:21 PM  
1 votes:

Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?


They convict people all the time on their refusal to take a breathalyzer test.

The Constitution died many many years ago and nobody noticed.
2013-04-21 04:48:59 PM  
1 votes:
The revised version:

You have the right to remain guilty.  Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law.  Anything you don't say or don't do can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion as well as a court of law.  If you ....
2013-04-21 04:47:34 PM  
1 votes:

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a gun owner and a strong believer in all rights, not just those explicitly protected by the Constitution.

/member of the NRA, ACLU, and EFF.
2013-04-21 04:43:09 PM  
1 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: Use of silence as evidence of guilt at trial will be forbidden... It doesn't look like SCOTUS is being asked to rule on those scenarios.


Use of silence as evidence of guilt at trial is exactly what is at issue in this case. The only wrinkle here is that the interrogation was non-custodial.
2013-04-21 04:22:56 PM  
1 votes:

ZAZ: Hardly a new principle. The Massachusetts model jury instruction on the general subject dates back at least to the 1980s:ADMISSION BY SILENCE

You have heard testimony suggesting that [speaker] allegedly (told the defendant) (said in the defendant's presence and hearing) that __________ . You have also heard testimony that the defendant allegedly (offered no response or explanation) (replied by saying that __________ ).

The Commonwealth is suggesting that the defendant's (silence) (reply was evasive or ambiguous and therefore it) amounts to a silent admission by the defendant that the accusation was true. If you believe the testimony, you will have to decide whether or not that is a fair conclusion.

Sometimes, when a direct accusation against a person is made to his face, you might naturally expect him to deny or correct the accusation if he is innocent of it. But that is not always true. Under some circumstances, it might not be reasonable to expect a routine denial.

You must be cautious in this area to be sure that any conclusions you draw are fair ones. First of all, you must be certain that the defendant heard any accusation and understood its significance.

You must also be satisfied that it is a fair conclusion that a person would always speak up in a situation like this if he were innocent. After all, no one is required to respond to every negative comment that is made about him. And there may be other factors in a given situation, apart from guilt or innocence with respect to the particular accusation, that might explain why a person did not choose to respond.

On the other hand, some accusations may be of such a nature, or come from such a source, that it may be natural to expect an innocent person to protest when such an accusation is made to his face if there are no other explanations for his silence.

If you accept the testimony about the defendant's alleged (silence) (reply), then you will have to look to you ...


Generally speaking, it's not a bad inference. People normally deny things they're falsely accused of, especially if they're serious. Maybe I don't give a sh*t if my office neighbor falsely accuses me of farting. But if someone asks if I own a gun used in a murder, and I don't, you're damn right I say no.

But it's different when police do it, because it gives them a mechanism to evade the Miranda warning just by holding non-custodial interrogations.  A decision that this is acceptable will effectively nullify the Miranda right for many many defendants. Of course, the conservative members of the court probably want to get rid of the MIrdana right anyway. This case gives them a path to seriously undermine it without having to overturn any precedent.
2013-04-21 04:16:18 PM  
1 votes:

fortheloveofgod: buzzcut73: A lot of states already do something similar to this when it comes to DWI refusal...they'll use your refusal to blow into the magic box with the secret source code as evidence at trial that you must be guilty. Doesn't surprise me that they'll try and extend that to other things.

In Michigan, refusal to blow into the magic box is all they need for a warrant for your blood. It's the automatic next step here.


I don't have much of a problem with them getting a warrant for a blood draw, as long as it isn't one of those no-refusal checkpoint rubber stamp things issued by a judge that's been hanging out and drinking coffee with the requesting officers all evening. I do take issue with them using a refusal as evidence at trial, or in the case of New Mexico, charging you with a greater crime (aggravated DWI) for simply refusing a breath test.
2013-04-21 04:16:06 PM  
1 votes:

Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?


It is in effect 24 7. However statements you make (or don't make) are treated differently if you are in a non-custodial situation. This guy answered a bunch of questions, clammed up for one question by biting his lip a d looking down, and then answered a bunch more questions. That is much different than the prosecutor inferring you did it because you refused to take the stand at your trial.
2013-04-21 04:14:13 PM  
1 votes:

cptjeff: It's a legal requirement that police have to inform you of your rights upon arrest. Has been since the Supreme Court said it was in... drumroll please... Miranda v. Arizona.


Better get a refund on that Law Degree, then.

SCOTUS has been going along with eliminating the Miranda protections for a while:
* Howes v. Fields (2012), 10-680
* Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), 08-1470
* Maryland v. Shatzer (2010), 08-680
etc.
2013-04-21 04:09:14 PM  
1 votes:

DerpHerder: Don't answer any questions and or make any statements. Request an attorney. Until attorney arrives "I have been instructed not to answer any questions or make a statement without my attorney present". If pressed "Please direct that question to my attorney".


This
2013-04-21 04:03:31 PM  
1 votes:

divx88: doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...

Yet I don't hear much from gay marriage advocates either.  Ya, people only care about what effects them.  It has to hit critical mass *then* it's important.


I'm not sure how many same-sex proponents say that the right to same-sex marriages protects all other constitutional rights, though.
2013-04-21 04:02:38 PM  
1 votes:
A lot of states already do something similar to this when it comes to DWI refusal...they'll use your refusal to blow into the magic box with the secret source code as evidence at trial that you must be guilty. Doesn't surprise me that they'll try and extend that to other things.
2013-04-21 04:01:16 PM  
1 votes:

Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?


That's the thing about this... since 9/11, the 5th itself is being undermined and rewritten.
2013-04-21 04:00:18 PM  
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-04-21 03:59:58 PM  
1 votes:

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


Yet I don't hear much from gay marriage advocates either.  Ya, people only care about what effects them.  It has to hit critical mass *then* it's important.
2013-04-21 03:56:20 PM  
1 votes:

Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?


I'm not even sure it's a legal requirement, akin to the myth that police must state they are indeed police if asked.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report