Comments for a public defender

Comment on Silence as guilt and the silent death of the Fifth Amendment by Joe

Joe — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:36:38 +0000

Gideon’s response is Golden, but if you want to understand more about the stakes behind the 5th Amendment, and have about 40 minutes to kill, then sit down and watch this former trial lawyer turned law professor (and then a police officer!) tell you why you should never talk to the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Comment on Silence as guilt and the silent death of the Fifth Amendment by Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:13:27 +0000

Excellent point. I agree completely.

Comment on Silence as guilt and the silent death of the Fifth Amendment by nidefatt

nidefatt — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:04:00 +0000

I don’t even see how you get to Miranda in this scenario. If the government poses a question and the Court is willing to see everything as a response, including silence, then that silence has been compelled in direct contradiction with the Constitution. The “prophylactic” part was the “custodial interrogation can only be dissipated if warnings or given or we just assume all answers are involuntary.” But if you’re willing to twist every answer into guilt, then all answers are involuntary so long as they are a response. Only a person who walks up and literally volunteers information is not being compelled to respond.

Comment on Silence as guilt and the silent death of the Fifth Amendment by Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:42:18 +0000

I think it is best to go like this, although perhaps the order doesn’t matter as much as conveying the message. Also try and record this interaction.

1. Am I free to leave?
- if yes, then walk away.
- if no, then go to 2.

2. I am exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. I refuse to answer any questions until I talk to a lawyer first.

3. I am exercising my constitutional right to counsel. I want a lawyer. I will not say a word further.

4. Do not say a word further.

Comment on Silence as guilt and the silent death of the Fifth Amendment by George

George — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:33:39 +0000

So, as a layman, is it best for me to give nothing but “name, rank, and serial number” when approached by a police officer? Should I say something like, “My name is George, and due to the Supreme Court ruling in Salinas v. Texas I have nothing further to say.”?
I’m confused by this ruling.

Comment on The Cost of Tsarnaev: the inexorable march toward totalitarianism by Silence as guilt and the silent death of the Fifth Amendment | a public defender

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:32:59 +0000

[...] why this line? Isn’t the “Miranda” warning prophylactic, as we were just told? Isn’t that merely an “advisement” of an already existing [...]

Comment on 33 years in jail is a technicality by Silence as guilt and the silent death of the Fifth Amendment | a public defender

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:15:38 +0000

[...] know what I call that? A technicality. A technicality that has now erased a whole lot more of what was written into the Fifth Amendment [...]

Comment on Since you asked: why the Government spying on you is your fault by Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:33:27 +0000

We shouldn’t be blaming the victim. The government is violating the Fourth Amendment. We shouldn’t have to give up all of our freedom to avoid the government’s misconduct. For example, shouldn’t be required to give up my right to privacy in my mail should the government decide mail is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. It is not much of an argument for me that “if you don’t want the government reading your mail, don’t use the postal system.” If you don’t want the government to listen to your phone calls, don’t make phone calls.

In California, we no longer are required to sign a form that says obtaining a driver’s license is “implied consent” to a blood-alcohol test. Now, the statute merely says that driving on California’s roads is “implied consent.” (Technically, consent is not “implied,” it “forced” consent.

Comment on 33 years in jail is a technicality by wyrdwyrd

wyrdwyrd — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:11:31 +0000

“”The Constitution is Not a Technicality”"
– That’s a good point.

Comment on What do we want from our system? by 33 years in jail is a technicality | a public defender

33 years in jail is a technicality | a public defender — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:48:43 +0000

[...] convictions were finally reversed by a trial court because they were actually innocent, only for that to be turned right back around by the Supreme Court, because it is not enough to prove that you are innocent, but you must also prove who did it. [...]