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.

(Above the Law)   Supreme Court amends Miranda: you have a right to remain silent, unless you're remaining silent. Then you need to speak up to say that you're remaining silent   (abovethelaw.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Justice Kennedy, good citizen, fifth amendment rights, civil litigation, Fifth Amendment, majority opinion, Alito  
•       •       •

14322 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2013 at 2:37 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-06-17 01:21:24 PM  
8 votes:

Nabb1: I recommend simply scanning the names of the Justices, and base all of your arguments on attacking them without really articulating any coherent legal argument of this particular issue and pepper it with buzzwords you've learned on this and other websites, but don't entirely understand


Ipso facto, I think that you are prima faciaing all over the establishment clause, ergo post hoctum ad reducto as established in Marbury v. Madison. Ad hoc, my compos mentis and habeus corpus is in flagrante delicto because of the post mortem veto of second amendment jurisprudence. Et tu, Brute.
2013-06-17 02:59:20 PM  
4 votes:
One of the times my 12 yr. old made me laugh the hardest is when the teacher sent home a note that read "...the visiting officer was not amused by the entire class refusing to speak to him. I later learned (your son) convinced the class to remain silent. When I asked him if it was true, he responded, "I want a lawyer"."
2013-06-17 01:54:04 PM  
3 votes:

vernonFL: "looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up."

If that is true, (and the cops could have just made that up) - the guy's body language spoke for him.

Police are trained to spot those "tells" in your behavior.


Yes, they are, but my two-year-old daughter could spot body language that obvious.  "But Daddy, you bought cookies and hit them up there."  I mean, how the hell does she know this stuff?  Daddy needs to take his little girl to see the horseys down at the track some time.
2013-06-17 09:44:13 PM  
1 vote:

Resident Muslim: mattharvest: CruiserTwelve: Criminals will also talk to the cops because they want to find out what evidence the cops have against them.

I have a statement from a case of mine from  years ago where the defendant did just this.  It was a simple theft case, but the suspect had gotten away.  Cops ID'd him from a witness who turned up, and they basically only had the word of the witness combined with the general description by the victim (it was here in an area of Maryland where about 3/4ths of cases charged involve a black male of about 5'10" in dark clothes).  The suspect literally did the cartoonish thing of asking about details he couldn't know.  I'd have to go find it in my files, but I believe he said something along the lines of "Did they recover the DVDs" or something when the police had just talked about shoplifting.

Made for a fun plea hearing.

I really hope that that was a recorded conversation, not the cops stating that the suspect asked about the DVDs and therefore incriminated himself by asking about information that wasn't public knowledge.


I had the written statement; given that the defendant pleaded - and admitted at sentencing the whole thing - I'm fairly certain they didn't make it up.
2013-06-17 02:49:22 PM  
1 vote:

mattharvest: Here's the easy way to understand this.  You've got Adam, and he killed Brian.  At some point after Adam kills Brian (with no witnesses), Adam is talking to Caleb it goes like this:
ADAM:  You know, I was involved in some stuff with Brian before Brian died.
CALEB: You were there?
ADAM: Yeah.
CALEB: [other questions about the scene]
ADAM: [other responsive answers]
CALEB: You know, they're doing ballistics analysis on the gun impacts where Brian was killed. You have a gun, right?  Do you think they'll match it to you?
ADAM: [first silence of the day]

If Caleb is a private citizen, it is indisputable  - and long settled law - that Caleb could come to court and testify to this conversation.  It's hearsay, but it's admitted to evidence under the long-standing rule of "Admission Against Interest" (which exists in all US jurisdictions, including federal, in criminal cases).

If Caleb is a police officer, however, it depends.  If Caleb has Adam in custody (not even necessarily arrest), then there are more specific questions that need to be answered, because the Court has routinely recognized (and reaffirmed in today's decision) that custody is intrinsically coercive.  If Caleb doesn't have Adam in custody, though, then it's no different than if Caleb were not a police officer at all.

Here, 'Adam' went to 'Caleb' voluntarily.  He was not detained or arrested.  He was free to leave at any time, and hadn't been placed in any restricted situation.  Moreover, the questioning was initiated when 'Adam' brought himself to the police.  In other words, there was nothing coercive about his circumstances.  As a result, it fell under the more general concept of 'admission against interest'.

Moreover, the Court reiterated a principle that has existed since Miranda itself: that to be shielded by the 5th Amendment, you must invoke it.  There's no magic phrase, but something must be said to indicate that your silence is because you feel it would incriminate you as opposed to just not wa ...


Sorry, but I can't make a good soundbite or Facebook comment with that analysis...so I'm gonna go with "OMG, the Supreme court says you can't remain silent anymore!"

KTHXBY
2013-06-17 02:40:41 PM  
1 vote:
Makes sense.  Sometimes you gotta post a bill that says "Post No Bills".
2013-06-17 01:52:25 PM  
1 vote:

vernonFL: "looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up."

If that is true, (and the cops could have just made that up) - the guy's body language spoke for him.

Police are trained to spot those "tells" in your behavior.


Anne Frank could have spotted those kinds of "tells."
2013-06-17 01:41:09 PM  
1 vote:

mattharvest: elysive: The guy in this case is an idiot...I suppose that if this ruling only affects idiots we should count ourselves lucky.

The smartest criminals don't get caught, I suppose.


There was a book I read a while back that claimed that criminology is misnamed, since the truly competent criminals don't get caught and the only ones available for study are the criminals who f*cked up. Hence, it should be called f*ckupology.
2013-06-17 01:15:32 PM  
1 vote:

Lost Thought 00: But how should I be outraged by this?


This being FARK, I recommend simply scanning the names of the Justices, and base all of your arguments on attacking them without really articulating any coherent legal argument of this particular issue and pepper it with buzzwords you've learned on this and other websites, but don't entirely understand.  I love a good con crim pro discussion, but this will get pooped on soon enough when it hits the main page.
2013-06-17 01:07:14 PM  
1 vote:

mattharvest: Here's the easy way to understand this.  You've got Adam, and he killed Brian.  At some point after Adam kills Brian (with no witnesses), Adam is talking to Caleb it goes like this:
ADAM:  You know, I was involved in some stuff with Brian before Brian died.
CALEB: You were there?
ADAM: Yeah.
CALEB: [other questions about the scene]
ADAM: [other responsive answers]
CALEB: You know, they're doing ballistics analysis on the gun impacts where Brian was killed. You have a gun, right?  Do you think they'll match it to you?
ADAM: [first silence of the day]

If Caleb is a private citizen, it is indisputable  - and long settled law - that Caleb could come to court and testify to this conversation.  It's hearsay, but it's admitted to evidence under the long-standing rule of "Admission Against Interest" (which exists in all US jurisdictions, including federal, in criminal cases).

If Caleb is a police officer, however, it depends.  If Caleb has Adam in custody (not even necessarily arrest), then there are more specific questions that need to be answered, because the Court has routinely recognized (and reaffirmed in today's decision) that custody is intrinsically coercive.  If Caleb doesn't have Adam in custody, though, then it's no different than if Caleb were not a police officer at all.

Here, 'Adam' went to 'Caleb' voluntarily.  He was not detained or arrested.  He was free to leave at any time, and hadn't been placed in any restricted situation.  Moreover, the questioning was initiated when 'Adam' brought himself to the police.  In other words, there was nothing coercive about his circumstances.  As a result, it fell under the more general concept of 'admission against interest'.

Moreover, the Court reiterated a principle that has existed since Miranda itself: that to be shielded by the 5th Amendment, you must invoke it.  There's no magic phrase, but something must be said to indicate that your silence is because you feel it would incriminate you as opposed to just not wanting to answer.  The court - if you actually read the opinion - lays out all the reasons this limitation has been in place for so long.

This case doesn't make new law, it just reiterates existing law.


But how should I be outraged by this?
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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