Dangerous Precedent being set here?

[Feuer Frei!]

Anything you say or don’t say can now be used against you.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them

SOURCE

[Buddahaid]

I can't say that I understand how not asking after the other accident victims is an admission of guilt, and not just anything else. That would fail beyond a reasonable doubt to my thinking.

[Jimbuna]

Here in the UK your not able to rely on anything in court you wouldn't answer when questioned.

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

[Wolferz]

The communist state of California continues the march to screw its citizens.

I would think that, at the most, the guy could be convicted of blatant negligence and involuntary manslaughter.
As usual, too many variables are left out of the story to make an armchair judgement. Was he drunk? Did he not have insurance? Is this the new method for an insurance company to get out of paying a claim?
WTF!??

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Here in the UK your not able to rely on anything in court you wouldn't answer when questioned.

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

I always get mixed up with the old Miranda.

Sam Tyler: Kim Trent, I'm arresting you in suspicion of armed robbery. You do not have to say anything but it may harm your def... No, that's not it, is it? What is it? ahh... You have the right to remain silent...
Gene: You're nicked!

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe he didn't say anything because he was in shock.

That aside, I can only see this as a bad thing. The relevant clause from the Fifth Amendment is simple: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". So this ruling seems to be saying "The Constitution says we can't make you say anything that might incriminate you, but we can assume your silence itself to be incriminating."

I did like the quote from dissenting justice Goodwin Liu: "The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one's right to remain silent."

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Here in the UK your not able to rely on anything in court you wouldn't answer when questioned.

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

It is different in Scotland Jim, our caution and charge is still the old one where remaining silent is still an option.

I'm arresting you for *****. You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say willb e noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand? (Note any replies made) Do you have anything to say? (Note any replies made).

Cheers

Gary

[Wolferz]

I'm sure the ACLU will have something to say about it.
Misinterpretation of federal law can't be superseded by any lower court.
I'm sure their ruling will be overturned by a higher court like the SCOTUS.
IIRC, insurance companies tell you not to say anything to anyone after you're involved in a MVA. Except maybe to ask the other occupants if they're OK and then you shut your mouth about the accident.
Miranda rights mean what they say. He had the right to remain silent unless his attorney was present. Even if he had asked, the cops wouldn't have told him anything.

[Buddahaid]

I get the impression that a considerable amount of time lapsed between when he was arrested and when his Miranda rights were read.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Garion

It is different in Scotland Jim, our caution and charge is still the old one where remaining silent is still an option.

I'm arresting you for *****. You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say willb e noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand? (Note any replies made) Do you have anything to say? (Note any replies made).

Cheers

Gary

Rgr that...pretty much like our previous/earlier one (Judges Rules).

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I can't say that I understand how not asking after the other accident victims is an admission of guilt, and not just anything else. That would fail beyond a reasonable doubt to my thinking.

I would agree. Not asking about the victims may indicate a lack of remorse or empathy, but neither of them is against the law.

This is a precedent that needs to be carefully bounded. The police already have too much authority that can be misused. The last thing we need to tolerate is giving them even more authority that can be abused.