Why One’s Silence Can Be Used Against Them In Court! This Is What The Supreme Court Says…
Articles,  Blog

Why One’s Silence Can Be Used Against Them In Court! This Is What The Supreme Court Says…


HELLO THERE ALL MY SILENT FRIENDS WHO HAVE
CAREFULLY INVOKED THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. IN THIS VIDEO, LET’S TALK ABOUT WHY YOUR SILENCE
COULD BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW? IN ONE OF MY PREVIOUS VIDEOS I DISCUSSED HOW
TO PROPERLY INVOKE ONE’S RIGHT TO SILENCE AND TO LEGAL COUNSEL. SOME VIEWERS COMMENTED THAT ONE’S SILENCE
CAN ACTUALLY BE USED AGAINST THEM ACCORDING TO A RELATIVELY RECENT SUPREME COURT RULING
ON THE CASE OF SALINAS V. TEXAS. SO, LET’S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS ISSUE
IN THIS VIDEO – UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN ONE’S SILENCE BE USED BY THE PROSECUTION
IN A COURT OF LAW. FIRST, LET’S TAKE A VERY QUICK LOOK AT THE
KEY FACTS FROM THE SALINAS VS. TEXAS CASE. THE MOST RELEVANT FACTS FOR OUR DISCUSSION
ARE THE FOLLOWING – MR. SILINAS WAS TALKING TO THE POLICE VOLUNTARILY
PRE-ARREST AND PRE MIRANDA WARNING. IN OTHER WORDS, MR. SILINAS HAD NOT BEEN ARRESTED OR CHARGED,
HE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN HIS MIRANDA WARNING, AND HE WAS ANSWERING POLICE QUESTIONS VOLUNTARILY
AND IN A NON-CUSTODIAL SETTING. IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO, HE VOLUNTARILY
ANSWERED A NUMBER OF POLICE QUESTIONS UNTIL THE POLICE ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS SHOTGUN. AT THAT POINT, MR. SALINAS BECAME SILENT AND, ACCORDING TO POLICE
REPORTS, HE APPEARED VISIBLY NERVOUS. BUT WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER CONTINUED AND
MOVED ON TO QUESTIONS INVOLVING OTHER TOPICS, MR. SALINAS STARTED TO ANSWER POLICE QUESTIONS
AGAIN. THE PROSECUTION ARGUED IN COURT THAT MR. SALINAS’ SILENCE TO THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
REGARDING HIS SHOTGUN WAS INDICATIVE OF HIS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. SO HERE THE QUESTION OF COURSE IS WHETHER
THE PROSECUTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IN COURT — BECAUSE ONE’S SILENCE
SHOULD BE UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION — AS ONE WOULD IMAGINE. THIS QUESTION REACHED ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME
COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN A 5/4 DECISION THAT IN THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTION
WAS ALLOWED TO USE THAT SILENCE IN COURT. LET’S NOW TAKE A MORE CAREFUL LOOK THE SUPREME
COURT DECISION. BUT LET ME SAY THIS FIRST — THE KEY ISSUE
HERE IS NOT WHETHER MR. SALINAS WAS ACTUALLY GUILTY OR NOT; THE KEY
THING THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE, ANYONE’S SILENCE SHOULD BE
ADMISSIBLE IN COURT OR NOT, WHETHER HIS SILENCE SHOULD BE USED BY THE PROSECUTION IN COURT,
AND WHY OR WHY NOT. SO, WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT SAY? SIMPLY PUT, FIVE JUSTICES — JUSTICE ALITO,
JUSTICE ROBERTS, AND JUSTICE KENNEDY, JUSTICE THOMAS, AND JUSTICE SCALIA WERE OF THE OPINION
THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS ALLOWED TO USE MR. SALINAS’ SILENCE AND ARGUE IN COURT THAT
THE SILENCE WAS INDICATIVE OF GUILT. BUT ALTHOUGH THESE 5 JUSTICES’ JUDGMENT
AGREED, THEIR REASONING AND RATIONALES DIVERGED. JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE ROBERTS, AND JUSTICE
KENNEDY WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REASON THAT THE PROSECUTION COULD USE THIS SILENCE
WAS BECAUSE MR. SALINAS NEVER INVOKED HIS 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. AND AS SUCH, HIS SILENCE WAS NOT UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION. THE JUSTICES ARGUED THAT THE 5TH AMENDMENT
IS NOT AUTOMATIC AND SELF-EXECUTING. ONE HAS TO INVOKE IT IN ORDER TO TRIGGER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION. AND BY THE WAY, THIS IS SOMETHING I SPECIFICALLY
TALKED ABOUT IN MY PREVIOUS VIDEO, SO PLEASE CHECK IT OUT. I’LL PUT A LINK ON THE SCREEN. BUT THE POINT HERE IS – THE THREE JUSTICES
SAID BECAUSE MR. SALINAS NEVER INVOKED, SO HIS SILENCE WAS
NOT PROTECTED, AND THEREFORE, THE PROSECUTION COULD COMMENT ON IT AND USE IT IN COURT. NOW, JUSTICE THOMAS AND JUSTICE SCALIA WERE
ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE WAS ALLOWED TO USE THIS SILENCE,
BUT THEIR REASON WAS DIFFERENT. BRIEFLY PUT, THEY SAID, EVEN IF SALINAS HAD
INVOKED THE 5TH AMENDMENT, THE PROSECUTION SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO USE HIS SILENCE
BECAUSE THE 5TH AMENDMENT, AND I QUOTE HERE — SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO A DEFENDANT’S
SILENCE DURING A PRE-CUSTODIAL INTERVIEW, END QUOTE. AS SUCH, THOMAS AND SCALIA HAD A VERY STRICT
VIEW AND INTERPRETATION OF 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. SO, THESE 5 JUSTICES — JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE
ROBERTS, AND JUSTICE KENNEDY, JUSTICE THOMAS, AND JUSTICE SCALIA CONCLUDED THAT THE PROSECUTION
IN THIS CASE WAS ENTITLED TO USING MR. SALINAS’ SILENCE IN COURT. ALTHOUGH IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AS WE HAVE
NOTED ALREADY, THAT THEIR REASONS DIFFERED. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 4 JUSTICES? WELL, THEY DISSENTED. JUSTICE BREYER, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, AND KAGAN
WERE OF THE OPINION THAT MR. SALINAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED UNDER HIS
5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS; AND THAT TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO USE A SUSPECT’S SILENCE,
EVEN IF IT IS PRE MIRANDA, PRE ARREST, NON-CUSTODIAL, WOULD PLACE THE PUBLIC IN AN IMPOSSIBLE PREDICAMENT. BECAUSE WHEN ONE IS FACED WITH POLICE QUESTIONING,
ONE CAN ONLY EITHER ANSWER OR NOT ANSWER. IF WHAT ONE SAYS CAN BE USED AGAINST THEM
IN A COURT OF LAW, AND IF THEIR SILENCE CAN ALSO BE USED AGAINST THEM IN A COURT OF LAW,
THEN THE PUBLIC IS SIMPLY FACED WITH A DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON’T DILEMMA. THAT IS WHY THESE 4 JUSTICES DISSENTED. NEVERTHELESS, OVERALL, IT WAS A 5/4 DECISION
THAT IN THE SALINAS VS. TEXAS CASE, THE PROSECUTION WAS ENTITLED TO
USING SALINAS’ SILENCE IN COURT. SO, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RULING? SHOULD WE JUST FORGET ABOUT THE 5TH AMENDMENT
AND NEVER BOTHER TO INVOKE IT? OF COURSE NOT. BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION CLOSELY, AND I WILL PUT A LINK TO THE FULL TEXT BELOW, WE CAN INFER, ALTHOUGH
THEY DID NOT STATE THIS OUTRIGHT AS A FACT, BUT WE CAN INFER, AS BEST AS WE COULD, THAT
7 OF 9 JUSTICES WOULD HAVE AGREED THAT THE PROPER INVOCATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT SHOULD
FORBID THE PROSECUTION FROM COMMENTING ON THE SUSPECT’S SILENCE IN COURT. WE CAN INFER FROM THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT THAT JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE ROBERTS, JUSTICE KENNEDY, JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE GINSBURG,
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, AND JUSTICE KAGAN; THAT THESE 7 JUSTICES WOULD MOST LIKELY SUPPORT
THAT AS LONG AS ONE PROPERLY INVOKES THE 5TH AMENDMENT, THEIR SILENCE IS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN COURT AT ALL AS A PROSECUTION ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE
OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. SO, TO INVOKE IS STILL THE WISE THING TO DO. ANOTHER IMPLICATION OF THIS SUPREME COURT
RULING IS THE FOLLOWING. THIS DECISION HAS LED SOME TO ARGUE AND RECOMMEND
THAT ONE SHOULD ALWAYS INVOKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE 6TH. THIS IS BECAUSE IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS CLEARLY
AND UNEQUIVOCALLY INVOKING THEIR RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL – ASKING FOR A LAWYER AT THE
VERY SAME TIME AS THEIR INVOCATION OF THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, COURTS ARE MORE LIKELY
TO VIEW SUCH INVOCATIONS AS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE COMMENTED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
IN COURT. WELL, I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH
HOW EMPIRICALLY TRUE THIS CLAIM IS, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND ITS RATIONALE. I DO AGREE THAT IT IS WISE TO INVOKE 5TH AND
6TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TOGETHER, AS MY PREVIOUS VIDEO INDEED HAS SUGGESTED. SO, TO SUM UP, ONE’S SILENCE COULD BE USED
AGAINST THEM IF ONE DOES NOT PROPERLY AND EFFICACIOUSLY INVOKE THEIR 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. EVEN IN PRE-MIRANDA, PRE-ARREST, NONCUSTODIAL
SITUATIONS, ONE SHOULD CONSIDER INVOKING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS — CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL
INVOCATION OF THEIR 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WOULD STILL BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AS USUAL, LET ME END THIS VIDEO BY SAYING
THIS — IT IS IMPORTANT DURING POLICE CITIZEN ENCOUNTERS THAT WE TREAT POLICE OFFICERS WITH
RESPECT. THE ABSOLUTE MAJORITY OF POLICE OFFICERS ARE
DECENT, GOOD, KIND PEOPLE DOING A TOUGH AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS JOB. WE SHOULD DEFINITELY RESPECT THAT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE SHOULD ALSO KNOW
OUR RIGHTS AND PROTECT OURSELVES. THE FULL TEXT LINK TO THE SUPREME COURT RULING
ON SALINAS V. TEXAS IS IN THE DESCRIPTION BELOW. AND AS ALWAYS, THANKS FOR WATCHING THIS RR
VIDEO, PLEASE LIKE AND SUB, SEE YOU NEXT TIME.

14 Comments

  • K Vjqxzz

    I think you shoudl respect people because they are people, not because of their putative role. The crooked police and the crooked legal systems of the world are enough to make me want to avoid the police altogether, let alone speak to them. The recent lunacy unleashed on two UK citizens are as bad as this piece of sophistical nonsense you promulgate here – Thomas and Scalia (RIP) should be ashamed. In the UK you can be now arrested for making an obviously comedy video with your pug dog about the Nazis treatment of the Jews – and this in the land of 'Monty Python' and 'Dad's Army', where the BBC set the world standard for anti-Nazi comedy. I suppose someone will take offence at a BBC hate crime on a re-run, I await the visitation of justice on the PC loony tune BBC with interest. And also the case of the 78-year old pensioner arrested for murder when acting in self defence for himself and his wife, against two armed young burglars who broke into their home – he successfully wrested a screwdriver from his attacker and turned the tables. There is just as much lunacy along these lines in the USA. Avoid the police I say, do NOT talk to them. Just do not.

  • Kir Bak

    Please answer me this however; what if instead of being silent, what if she had evoked her right to an attorney. If during the non-custodial interrogation she said "I think I'm done talking without an attorney" and the officer clarifies that she doesn't want to continue without her attorney and she confirms that's what she said, but the officer still continues to ask questions?

  • AlwaysBored

    Great video. Very interesting to learn details about this case. I wonder what would happen if you simply stood mute for the duration of any contact with police? I've heard this case cited as the reason why you shouldn't do that, but it seems like what got Salinas in trouble was his selective use of silence. I suppose if you treated the police with complete silence the prosecution would argue that's somehow an admission of guilt, but your defense would argue that it's quite literally an admission of nothing. Either way I completely agree with the dissenting judges. If what you DON'T say can be used against you in court that can only mean you are, at least at some point, being presumed guilty.

  • Frank Castle II

    "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." You have to follow the meaning of Miranda. It does not include," If you choose to remain silent, that can be used against you also." The Justices have mocked the constitution and should hang if they change the meanings. By the way, it Is not illegal to treat cops like garbage when they violate rights and act unprofessional. Why are the prison's so full in America? Someone was disrespecting a cop. Research malicious prosecution, it is and has rapidly increased in America.

  • Jumbo Palumbo

    Evidence of a fired shotgun matching the ballistics of the victims led to his guilty verdict. Whether or not Salinas said ANYTHING the evidence in the case proved his guilt to 12 jurors. Just because you invoke your 5th amendment rights does not mean you can not be convicted of a crime when the evidence points the finger directly at the suspect. Even with SCOTUS throwing out EVERY bit of the interview the evidence still proved guilt. This case was not decided on Salinas' silence.

    Lesson is. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND CALL A LAWYER. If you can't afford a lawyer KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. It's free.

  • Familie Hagen

    Is all this only relevant in the USA, or also in the UK/Commonwealth countries that have British legal System, as the pictures of UK Police force members imply?

  • Mark Poulin

    The previous video on exactly how to invoke your constitutional rights is now deleted. Why? Fortunately I wrote every word down. This one, I understand it, but has anything really changed? I'm walking down the street, doing nothing wrong, a police officer stops me, I invoke my rights using those precise words..Is that now irrelevant?

  • JMAK attack!

    By virtue of their decision to join the police force, any person claiming the authority over another without authorized jurisdiction, makes them a criminal. Every police officer breaks the law, every day. So, no….there aren't any good cops. They are all criminal actors getting away with criminal acts. Yet, there g!orified for it.

  • Marcos Vazquez

    True! Life is about if u run in2 a certain situation! If u do it's a problem n if u don't it's another problem! Some ppl have the tendency 2 abuse the system

  • Marcos Vazquez

    Cuz some of them have that mouthpiece n know how 2 beat the system n know how 2 get away with things but if they c some1 as an ex target they take advantage if the situation n if they know how 2 study the person right n c the person as naive n clueless n set them up 2 get in problems that some ppl don't know how 2 get out of! It's messed up n it sux but that's how it is

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *