Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

volokh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#41

Post by aqme28 »

dietrichepp wrote: post #39
relaunched wrote: post #3

This court has taken a very interesting stance. This ruling, plus some earlier rulings regarding the 4th amendment has made it clear, that one has to understand, intimately, the nuances of ones' rights and act accordingly, in order for those rights to apply. Otherwise, they have agreed to waive those rights.

The same thing already applies in the courtroom (ignoring the hyperbolic word choice of "intimately" and "nuances"). When you take the stand in court, you have to explicitly invoke your fifth amendment right. Nobody is required to tell you your rights. The article explains how Miranda rights were already special. The requirement for the police to explain your rights was to mitigate the fact that custodial interrogati…

In the courtroom you have legal counsel, and if your lawyer doesn't help you to the best of their abilities they can be disbarred.

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#42

Post by hippich »

How in the world "Would the shells from his shotgun match the shells found at the murder scene?" is "the government is not actually forcing him to be a witness against himself"?

And why police even allowed to ask questions like this when person is not even a suspect?

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#43

Post by gizmo686 »

I think there's a secondary issue that should be at play in this case (I haven't read the opinion, so they might have addressed this). Independent of the 5th amendment, prosecutors are generally not allowed to introduce prejudicial evidence, or evidence that would exploit the irrationality of humans more that provide actual evidence. It feels like this type of body language analysis would qualify. Perhaps if there was someone with training in body language, and he could cite research generally accepted by the scientific community, that his method of analysis produces reliable results, then this may be admissible.

Of course, they should also maintain a recording of the interview so the defense can use it, and to mitigate the potential for human failures. The cost of this seems negligible, so the only reason I can see them not doing this is if they don't want the full account of what happened precisely to be shown.

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#45

Post by AnIrishDuck »

sukuriant wrote: post #4

The debate mental-chess that the lay-person needs to understand is, quite honestly, terrifying. So now, if a police officer asks you an incriminating question off the cuff, and you say "I would like a lawyer" or "I invoke the 5th" or even say nothing, without a legal background you may find yourself in a situation where what was said / wasn't said can be used against you? This can't be what was originally intended by…

You can still win the game be refusing to play. Assert your right to depart as soon as possible. State (politely) that you refuse to answer off-the-cuff questions. Upon any indication of detention, ask if you are free to leave.

If you no longer have this right, you're in hot water. Shut up. Lawyer up. The law is a dangerous animal that you do NOT want to face alone and unguided.

Most people trip up by either:

(1) Assuming that the law officer is their friend and they are not a suspect. That's what happened here.

(2) Foolishly thinking they can talk their way out of their predicament with what they gleaned from the last episode of law and order. The cops probably know more than you about the law.

I personally would refuse to answer any questions beyond the level of "how fast were you going" from a LEO without a lawyer present. I would advise others to do the same.

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#46

Post by cstavish »

"At trial, the government argued that Salinas had committed the murder based in part on his response to the question about the shotgun shells. The prosecutor argued to the jury that an innocent person would have said, “What are you talking about? I didn’t do that. I wasn’t there.” But Salinas didn’t do that; he remained silent. And that suggested guilt. Notably, Miranda‘s footnote 37 didn’t apply because Salinas was not in “custody” for Miranda purposes. He was at the stationhouse voluntarily, not by force, so Miranda didn’t apply. The question before the Court was whether the government was allowed to argue about the significance of the defendant’s pre-arrest silence to the jury."

The gist of the case, for those not keen on reading the lengthy introduction.

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#47

Post by dietrichepp »

aqme28 wrote: post #41
dietrichepp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing already applies in the courtroom (ignoring the hyperbolic word choice of "intimately" and "nuances"). When you take the stand in court, you have to explicitly invoke your fifth amendment right. Nobody is required to tell you your rights. The article explains how Miranda rights were already special. The requirement for the police to explain your rights was to mitigate the fact that custodial interrogati…

In the courtroom you have legal counsel, and if your lawyer doesn't help you to the best of their abilities they can be disbarred.

You won't necessarily have legal counsel if you're a witness.

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#48

Post by r00fus »

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #45
sukuriant wrote: post #4

The debate mental-chess that the lay-person needs to understand is, quite honestly, terrifying. So now, if a police officer asks you an incriminating question off the cuff, and you say "I would like a lawyer" or "I invoke the 5th" or even say nothing, without a legal background you may find yourself in a situation where what was said / wasn't said can be used against you? This can't be what was originally intended by…

You can still win the game be refusing to play. Assert your right to depart as soon as possible. State (politely) that you refuse to answer off-the-cuff questions. Upon any indication of detention, ask if you are free to leave. If you no longer have this right, you're in hot water. Shut up. Lawyer up. The law is a dangerous animal that you do NOT want to face alone and unguided. Most people trip up by either: (1) Ass…

This is a horrible result - how can law enforcement be effective if no one trusts them enough to willingly assist them?

Their job just got tougher today.

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#49

Post by chii »

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #45
sukuriant wrote: post #4

The debate mental-chess that the lay-person needs to understand is, quite honestly, terrifying. So now, if a police officer asks you an incriminating question off the cuff, and you say "I would like a lawyer" or "I invoke the 5th" or even say nothing, without a legal background you may find yourself in a situation where what was said / wasn't said can be used against you? This can't be what was originally intended by…

You can still win the game be refusing to play. Assert your right to depart as soon as possible. State (politely) that you refuse to answer off-the-cuff questions. Upon any indication of detention, ask if you are free to leave. If you no longer have this right, you're in hot water. Shut up. Lawyer up. The law is a dangerous animal that you do NOT want to face alone and unguided. Most people trip up by either: (1) Ass…

apropos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Edit: ahh didn't realize link was posted below as well.

Re: Do You Have A Right to Remain Silent? Thoughts on Salinas v. Texas

#50

Post by gwgarry »

cstavish wrote: post #46

"At trial, the government argued that Salinas had committed the murder based in part on his response to the question about the shotgun shells. The prosecutor argued to the jury that an innocent person would have said, “What are you talking about? I didn’t do that. I wasn’t there.” But Salinas didn’t do that; he remained silent. And that suggested guilt. Notably, Miranda‘s footnote 37 didn’t apply because Salinas was…

Which is stupid. I would think to myself I am being accused of a crime, I better remain silent lest they try to pin this on me.

I have tried being polite, but it's quickly getting to the point where the righteous indignation is such that you want to resort to cursing the judge for his moronic legal fiction to justify this.

Post reply on HN