Supreme Court Bombshell: No Right to Remain Silent

I googled "Supreme Court: 'no right to remain silent' " and got nine of the ten hits on the first page that read identically to the article you quoted. Seems to me no one can confirm it independently, so they all just played "follow the leader" without checking to see if the "leader" really knew what they were talking about. Whoever that is, they don't. Lets look at at a responsible news organization's take on the decision:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insider...implications-for-white-collar-investigations/

The Supreme Court accepted review of the case to resolve a split in the lower courts on whether the prosecution may use evidence that a defendant asserted the privilege against self-incrimination during a non-custodial police interview. But the Supreme Court’s plurality decision did not reach that issue. [Emphasis added] Instead, three justices, Alito, Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, found that Salinas’s challenge to his conviction failed because he did not expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege. The plurality relied on prior decisions holding that to ensure that the Fifth Amendment was not being asserted too broadly and to allow the government to challenge an assertion or overcome it by granting immunity, a witness must expressly invoke the right to obtain its benefits. The plurality reasoned that there could be many explanations for silence in the face of questioning, and if the witness’s reason was the Fifth Amendment, he was obligated to say so. The plurality’s view carried the day because two other justices, Scalia and Thomas, took an even narrower view of the protections of the Fifth Amendment.

In a vigorous dissent joined by three other justices, Justice Breyer pointed out that the Court had repeatedly held that “no ritualistic formula is necessary to invoke the privilege,” and that whether the right was invoked turned on the circumstances. The particular circumstances in this case — questioning of an unrepresented suspect in a criminal investigation at the police station – made it obvious that Salinas was invoking his fundamental Constitutional right to remain silent.​

The Forbes article goes on to speculate that the oddness of the decision carries frightening implications for all such police investigations, beyond the major crime of murder. But the above content pretty much negates that observation. All that a "person of interest" in a non-custodial interview -- and keep in mind, any scope of the ruling applies only to non-dustodial, i.e., non-arrest, interviews -- has to do is plead the fifth, and the interview is over. This ruling does nothing to restrict or curtail Fifth Amendment rights. The speculation exhibited by these alarmists is irresponsible.

 

Sounds like you just got called a conspiracy theorist Rev. :laugh:

Maybe we could get thisnumbersdisconnected to give us a list of reputable sources so us poor souls that aren't nearly as smart as he is never have to make the mistake of going to another one of those un-reputable sources.

C'mon whatta say there TNISD? Would ya would ya would ya? :smilewinkgrin:

 

For the record, "The New American is published twice monthly by American Opinion Publishing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society." That is from their masthead.

The man volunteered to speak to the police and then decided that he did not want to answer the questions anymore. That happens all the time on Law and Order. So I don't think that anything changed legally except this man did not say that he wanted a lawyer or wanted to take the fifth and that was brought up in court by the prosecution.

It sounds as if forensic evidence was against the defendant but his ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I think that the John Birch Society is wrong. I think that the law was not changed.

 

I think that's been taken care of here:

Recognizing your sarcasm, Poncho, and deciding to comment anyway, I'd suggest not taking anything The New American says very seriously. And, for the record, don't put words in my mouth:

That isn't kosher, in my book. Discuss. Please don't attempt to define your opposition using words and phrases they did not post. It would be greatly appreciated in this corner, thank you.