|
Real0ne -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 1:56:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: truckinslave
You have cited not a case, but a law firms opinion of a case. The case about which they opine is a civil matter in federal court and as such has little or no bearing to this discussion.
Further, even then, the opinion referenced said:
Supreme Court clarified that holding and explained that an adverse inference may not be drawn from silence alone, and must be considered as one of several factors. Se
The admissibility of police testimony in state court in criminal cases remains, evidently, a matter for the ststes.
Do you read these things before you post them?
Yes, and you should read or learn to as well, several cites in that document:
As in:
1. It is widely recognized that an adverse inference may
be drawn against a person who has asserted the
privilege in civil and administrative cases. See Baxter
v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) (holding that
respondent’s Fifth Amendment rights were not
violated where he was advised that he was not
required to testify, but that his silence could be held
against him); Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision,
45 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 1994) (same); LaSalle Bank
Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 390-91 (7th Cir.
1995) (same).
2
2. A year after the Baxter decision, the Supreme Court
clarified that holding and explained that an adverse
inference may not be drawn from silence alone, and
must be considered as one of several factors. See
Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 808 n.5
(1977) (stating that “[r]espondent’s silence in Baxter
was only one of a number of factors to be considered
by the finder of fact in assessing a penalty and was
given no more probative value than the facts of the
case warranted”); SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that “Lefkowitz and
Baxter require that there be evidence in addition to the
adverse inference to support a court’s ruling”).
3. In light of Baxter, adverse inferences may be drawn....
And that is not the entire citations. So, spewing asswipe is not much of a way to make you look like anything other than an untutored imbecile. I hope that is not the ideal you are attempting to portray....
Because I said at the outset, filled with caselaw...........and WHOMP, THERE IT IS!!!!
Because (and that was part of the decision, the circuits had went some for and some against. Now its all for, as a matter of doctrine.
I took a quick look at the first couple cases and the supreme court made an improper and inequitable ruling.
they then continued in later rulings to nullify the the 5th with the usual "narrow" rulings.
that is how a rat gnaws its way into your house so it can shit all over your bed while you are sleeping.
|
|
|
|
