Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment

Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:25 AM

The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 


This is disturbing (maybe)...

http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/3504?share_ref=I dADkY34O4w

although I'm not sure they have eliminated it.  Hasn't one always had to plead the 5th in order to stop questioning?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 6:45 AM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 


I'd want to see a little more context around that quote before I get outraged.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 8:02 AM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 


How does one self incriminate when one doesn't say anything?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 8:06 AM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 




---------------------------------------------
--- SFChief wrote:

This is disturbing (maybe)...

act.watchdog.net/petitions/3504?share_ref=I dADkY34O4w

although I'm not sure they have eliminated it.  Hasn't one always had to plead the 5th in order to stop questioning?

---------------------------------------------

I don't think it's a big deal, it's one of semantics if you ask me.

If you remain silent, you aren't incriminating yourself.

And whether you state out loud that you are invoking the fifth or not, you aren't saying anything to incriminate yourself.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 9:09 AM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 



Termin8or wrote: I don't think it's a big deal, it's one of semantics if you ask me.

If you remain silent, you aren't incriminating yourself.
In front of a jury silence is always incriminating.

"He COULD have told us his story, but he didn't say anything!!"  Guilty.

This is one of the most defendant unfriendly SCOTUS rulings in decades and just wipes out a whole corpus of 5th amendment jurisprudence. I can't believe I hadn't heard about this.

Hey, but when your conviction rate is already 98% you have to do something to make sure those bastards don't get off on some "technicality" right guys?
#TEAMBECKMAN
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 9:30 AM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 



DerrickRose wrote:
Termin8or wrote: I don't think it's a big deal, it's one of semantics if you ask me.

If you remain silent, you aren't incriminating yourself.
In front of a jury silence is always incriminating.

"He COULD have told us his story, but he didn't say anything!!"  Guilty.

This is one of the most defendant unfriendly SCOTUS rulings in decades and just wipes out a whole corpus of 5th amendment jurisprudence. I can't believe I hadn't heard about this.

Hey, but when your conviction rate is already 98% you have to do something to make sure those bastards don't get off on some "technicality" right guys?
That has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.   It is a normal human reaction to think that and the courts have always read into instructions that a person should not be assumed to be guilty because they did not testify in their behalf.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 9:47 AM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 



Termin8or wrote: That has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.   It is a normal human reaction to think that and the courts have always read into instructions that a person should not be assumed to be guilty because they did not testify in their behalf.
Allowing the attorneys to argue that point is another kettle of fish entirely.

And it's an evidentiary issue as well. The invocation of 5th amendment rights regarding an answer means you can't even get into the question asked without risking a mistrial.

The 5th amendment and Miranda are supposed to work in tandem to create a clear, simple firewall of what can be admitted as evidence and what cannot. This makes everyone's job easier, protects all defendant's rights equally, and discourages police misconduct.

All of those interests go out the window with this ruling. You're gonna see some serious nonsense from all this. William Brennan must be rolling in his grave.
#TEAMBECKMAN
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 10:21 PM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 



DilferUC wrote: I'd want to see a little more context around that quote before I get outraged.
You must be new around the Boneyard.  We don't need any stinkin' context in order to (at least feign) outrage.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/12/2013 2:55 PM

Re: The Supreme Court Just Eliminated The Fifth Amendment 



DerrickRose wrote:
Termin8or wrote: That has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.   It is a normal human reaction to think that and the courts have always read into instructions that a person should not be assumed to be guilty because they did not testify in their behalf.
Allowing the attorneys to argue that point is another kettle of fish entirely.

And it's an evidentiary issue as well. The invocation of 5th amendment rights regarding an answer means you can't even get into the question asked without risking a mistrial.

The 5th amendment and Miranda are supposed to work in tandem to create a clear, simple firewall of what can be admitted as evidence and what cannot. This makes everyone's job easier, protects all defendant's rights equally, and discourages police misconduct.

All of those interests go out the window with this ruling. You're gonna see some serious nonsense from all this. William Brennan must be rolling in his grave.
After reading an article about the case and the court's decision, I agree that this is potentially scary. It leaves anyone unaware of the ruling at risk, and it puts people who are aware in a position where it's in their best interests to simply refuse to cooperate with any police investigation by actively invoking their fifth amendment rights to avoid potential problems. 

Here's where I'm unclear though: the case wasn't about using his silence as evidence, it was more about demeanor in response to the question. Prior to this ruling, let's say that in a hypothetical scenario the police are questioning someone and ask if he committed a particular crime. When the question is asked, he says no, but all of his nonverbal cues suggest that he's lying. Wouldn't the police's observation of those nonverbal cues have been admissible as evidence? From the standpoint of building a case against the individual, a denial of guilt on its face is no more incriminating than that person remaining silent, but if the circumstances surrounding the denial could come into evidence, why wouldn't it be appropriate to allow the circumstances surrounding remaining silent. It's not silence as evidence, it's nonverbal response to a question that the person chose not to answer as evidence (flimsy and subjective as that evidence may be). Is there something I'm missing here?
Reply | Quote