“The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect’s refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial. Salinas’ lawyer argued that his client deserved a Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, even though he had not been under arrest or read his rights under the landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona. Last April, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but noted that federal appeals courts are split as to whether ‘pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt.'”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-court-silence-idUSBRE90A13P20130111
Related posts:
Bitcoin Rollercoaster Hits China, Challenging Supervision
New crowdfunding site JumpStart Fund hopes to launch new startups
U.S. Air Force can’t find enough people willing to be drone pilots
Smart Drones
IRS Power To Revoke Passports Signed Into Law
Justice Department to review DEA’s mass surveillance program
Coroner slams handling of Kendrick Johnson case
Senator Chambliss: NSA program helped gather current 'terror chatter'
Israel admits to 1988 Mossad assasination of ‘PLO No.2 Abu Jihad’
Eleven people across UK arrested for making 'racist or anti-religious' comments on Facebook
German Gold Stays in New York in Rebuff to Euro Doubters
Strong smell of marijuana reported inside Colorado Capitol
Obama Flipped Out When A Judge Blocked NDAA Because He Was Already Detaining People?
Women to assume combat roles in U.S. military
Breakable, Barterable Bullion: The Gold Bar You Can Carry In Your Wallet And Use As Money