Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

Jack on telling the Cop’s ….’I don’t wanna say anything…..I’m Lawyering Up’………(You gotta actually say that now!)

The Supreme Court ruling today that criminal suspects must invoke their right to remain silent
is sure to stir up the Left

Witness Sonia Sotomayors vigorous dissent

I dont have a problem with it myself

And I dont see where it violates anyones rights to require them to simply say

“I dont wish to talk” or similiar words

Seems commonsensical to me

John Roberts,Sam Alito,Claerence Thomas.Antonin Scalia,
Tony Kennedy

And me!

Information on the ruling…..

The Supreme Court ruled this morning (in another 5-4 ruling) that if a suspect wants to invoke their Miranda right to remain silent during an interrogation, they must announce their intent to remain silent. You can read the full opinion here.

Kennedy delivered the opinion and the usual gang agreed with him.

Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously. . . .” If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation. . . or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent. . . . Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the question-ing. He did neither.

More……..

Advertisements

June 1, 2010 - Posted by | Blogs, Breaking News, Crime, Law, Media, Updates | , , ,

4 Comments »

  1. Long before this ruling, I commented several times on the fact that almost none of the Justices has experience with the criminal justice system at the trial level, leading to unrealistic, academic expectations of what a normal real-life person (innocent or not) suspected of crime encounters and how he or she would react.

    I think Sonia Sotomayor (after David Souter’s and Sandra O’Connor’s departures) might be one who does have such experience, and she dissented vigorously.

    Comment by Democratic Socialist Dave | June 1, 2010 | Reply

  2. You know DSD….That’s a very…very…GOOD POINT!

    Comment by jamesb101 | June 1, 2010 | Reply

  3. Associated Press story by Jesse J. Holland

    Supreme Court’s Official syllabus [synopsis],and full text of the Opinion and Dissent in Berghuis v Thompkins, 08-1470 (via FindLaw)

    In Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, he says (in part):

    Second, Thompkins’s answer to Detective Helgert’s question about whether Thompkins prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim is a “course of conduct indicating waiver” of the right to remain silent. Butler, supra, at 373. If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to Helgert’s questions, or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation. The fact that Thompkins made a statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning does not overcome the fact that he engaged in a course of conduct indicating waiver. Police are not required to rewarn suspects from time to time. Thompkins’s answer to Helgert’s question about praying to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim was sufficient to show a course of conduct indicating waiver. This is confirmed by the fact that before then Thompkins had given sporadic answers to questions throughout the interrogation.

    Justice Sotomayor concludes her dissent with this paragraph:

    Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent–which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Today’s broad new rules are all the more unfortunate because they are unnecessary to the disposition of the case before us. I respectfully dissent.

    Comment by Democratic Socialist Dave | June 1, 2010 | Reply

  4. DAVE

    so TRUE

    this will be hard for so many DRUNK people

    sad point in USA history

    Comment by Timothy Leal | June 1, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: