The Supreme Court overturned a ruling from the appeals court that threw out a confession and a conviction in a murder case where the suspect provided monosyllabic answers to questions for three hours before finally admitting guilt, but did not explicitly invoke his right to remain silent. The court’s decision equates that invocation with the right to an attorney, which must be explicitly demanded.
The decision that the original Cincinnati court made was foolish. What did they expect to have them do to make sure that they didn't violate their right to remain silent?
"You have the right to remain silent? Do you understand? No, no do you REALLY understand that you have the right to STFU? For the last time, REALLY?"
Come on!
The decision was 5-4, which was a bit surprising that it was more of a lopsided decision. I didn't think that it would be 9-0 like Ed thought that it should have been. I knew that there would have one or two dissenters that would not have had the common sense to see that the implication of the opposite decision would of been an unnecessary burden for our law enforcement to do their jobs and investigate crimes. They already warn them to shut up in Miranda. It is up to the person to actually shut up, if they wish.
No comments:
Post a Comment