So, how will the recent Supreme Court decision of Salinas v. Texas affect future criminal prosecution?
It is very difficult, of course, to tell the future from these cases. Yet, if we are to read the Salinas decision on its face, it seems clear that if a person is simply detained by law enforcement but not placed under arrest (and also read his Miranda rights), then it is arguably clear that the person does not have the right to remain silent unless the detained person specifically invokes his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
And, once again from a plain reading of the case, it is arguably clear that the detained person must specifically state that he is invoking his 5th Amendment rights. He cannot simply stay silent or say something to the effect that "I don't want to say anything."
As a criminal defense attorney and fraud examiner, I can see several problems with this in terms of the rights of a detained person. The first problem is obvious: why should the police bother to arrest the person at first and read Miranda warnings when they can just keep the person in detention, ask the person questions and, if the detained person refuses to answer the questions, this silence or lack of a response can be used against him? This can lead to all sorts of issues for detained individuals who later are prosecuted. Anything said (or not said) before being Mirandized can lead to this evidence being used against the person at trial.
It would seem to me that this is an easy way for the police to collect information on a detained person without risk of having this evidence thrown out.
It is very difficult, of course, to tell the future from these cases. Yet, if we are to read the Salinas decision on its face, it seems clear that if a person is simply detained by law enforcement but not placed under arrest (and also read his Miranda rights), then it is arguably clear that the person does not have the right to remain silent unless the detained person specifically invokes his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
And, once again from a plain reading of the case, it is arguably clear that the detained person must specifically state that he is invoking his 5th Amendment rights. He cannot simply stay silent or say something to the effect that "I don't want to say anything."
As a criminal defense attorney and fraud examiner, I can see several problems with this in terms of the rights of a detained person. The first problem is obvious: why should the police bother to arrest the person at first and read Miranda warnings when they can just keep the person in detention, ask the person questions and, if the detained person refuses to answer the questions, this silence or lack of a response can be used against him? This can lead to all sorts of issues for detained individuals who later are prosecuted. Anything said (or not said) before being Mirandized can lead to this evidence being used against the person at trial.
It would seem to me that this is an easy way for the police to collect information on a detained person without risk of having this evidence thrown out.
NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR
IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. IF
THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.
----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene
tausk
No comments:
Post a Comment