The SCOTUS took a gigantic step in the right direction today by holding that a defendant's response to interrogation, even if only a few words over several hours of interrogation, is sufficient to imply a waiver of the right to remain silent. That is consistent with CCA case law.

And, guess what, Sotomayor, the new justice who liberals worried would be tough on crime, writes a dissent joined by the usual group.

Details.

"Consistent with CCA case law." I love it, and that is the way it should be!

It just plain makes sense to put invoking the right to silence on the same platform as invoking the right to counsel--if a little dissappointing that the case was so close(5-4).

What is really interesting about the case is that it shows the very close relationship between invoking the right to silence and waiving the right to silence. As I read it, the majority holds Thompkins failed to invoke his right but the dissent opines that he never waived it.

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 06-02-10 at .]

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 06-02-10 at .]

How much daylight is there between the issue of invocation and voluntary waiver after this case?

A darting slither perhaps. Catch it if you can.

Sotomayor was supposed to be the prosecutor's friend on the Supremes. VP Joe Biden said so. Considering Biden's track record, I guess it's no surprise that he is once again dead wrong.

Personally, I don't think the 5th Amend. is violated if the fact finder hold's the defendant's silence against him. Remaining silent when accused of a crime is in fact pretty incriminating evidence, and is accepted as such by just about every other country in the world. Indeed, it is accepted as such in the US in civil cases.

Just wait until Kagan shows her true colors.

"Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters."

source

We can only hope she turns out to be the reverse of Souter who, you will recall, President Bush Snr nominated and turned out not so prosecutor friendly.

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 06-02-10 at .]

At worst she will be another Stevens.

I'm worried about who will pick the replacements for Kennedy and/or Scalia. That will truly shift the Court.

Too true. Perhaps that will be a good while ahead though.

quote:

---

Remaining silent when accused of a crime is in fact pretty incriminating evidence, and is accepted as such by just about every other country in the world.

---

Terry have you been reading foreign law, again?

Donkey [hanging from wall in dungeon]: LEMME OUTTA HERE! YOU CAN'T LOCK US UP LIKE THIS! LEMME GO! HEY, WHAT ABOUT MY MIRANDA RIGHTS?! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT! NOBODY SAID I HAD THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT!!!

Shrek: Donkey! You have the right to remain silent! What you lack is the capacity.