|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:55 am Post subject: Another Bizarre Supreme Court 5-4 |
 |
|
Salinas v. Texas.
| Quote: |
Holding: When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2013. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurred only in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan. |
That's almost as bad as, "You can't file a lawsuit taking issue with being secretly spied upon unless you can prove you're being secretly spied upon." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This exception makes total sense, just like the numerous exceptions to the 4th Amendment. You need lawyers to explain it to you, and for a modest fee I can make it all make sense. The way the Supreme Court has construed the 5th Amendment, you really need a lawyer around during any interrogation while in custody. And that's good, for some of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
