Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Judi Lynn

(164,155 posts) Fri Aug 15, 2014, 09:40 PM Aug 2014

Court: Silence can be used against suspects [View all]

Source: Associated Press

Court: Silence can be used against suspects
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press | August 15, 2014 | Updated: August 15, 2014 5:35pm

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.

Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.

Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.

Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Court-Silence-may-sometimes-show-guilt-5691179.php

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Court: Silence can be used against suspects [View all] Judi Lynn Aug 2014 OP

OK, but what part of the silence leads to guilt? padfun Aug 2014 #1

another court violates a person's rights to free speech or choice to not speak. BS ruling nt msongs Aug 2014 #2

"If freedom of speech is to have any practical purpose, it must include the right to remain silent� Journeyman Aug 2014 #3

RIP 5th. L0oniX Aug 2014 #4

IMO we might be reading too much into this ruling groundloop Aug 2014 #5

Agreed. I'm not sure why the judge didnt admonish the prosecutor during the trial for doing that cstanleytech Aug 2014 #6

try this local source alp227 Aug 2014 #7

Maybe he knew his rights before being read them....... on point Aug 2014 #11

...more sanctioned grasping at straws. SoapBox Aug 2014 #8

Not as bad as I thought Shemp Howard Aug 2014 #9

Agreed. I see both sides. Affirmatively invoking 5th vs invoking a right against a ? never asked. politicat Aug 2014 #10

Soooo... RobinA Aug 2014 #24

Just because the asshole murderer may not have intended to kill other people but did anyway due to valerief Aug 2014 #12

Showed his guilt of what? Being heartless? Was he on trial for being an asshole or for McCamy Taylor Aug 2014 #13

Failure to ask the cops a question shouldn't be held against you, because they are permitted to lie. LeftyMom Aug 2014 #14

Good post. nt woo me with science Aug 2014 #17

The new Miranda: "Everything you don't say can and will be used against you in a court of law" Throd Aug 2014 #15

+1 woo me with science Aug 2014 #18

This will go higher. Ikonoklast Aug 2014 #16

We are ruled by fascists now. The Constitution woo me with science Aug 2014 #19

Extra-judicial punishment has been the norm for years now. Ikonoklast Aug 2014 #21

Say goodbye to more of the Bill of Rights. woo me with science Aug 2014 #20

The remark should have been struck and grounds for an appeal. Horrible decision. TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #22

oy. yurbud Aug 2014 #23

Terrible news. Another right to go away soon. blkmusclmachine Aug 2014 #25

The 4th Amendment died when the 'Good Faith' Exception was added. Wolf Frankula Aug 2014 #27

Another bruise defacto7 Aug 2014 #26

kick woo me with science Aug 2014 #28