Right To Remain Silent Used as Evidence of Guilt

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -Amendment V, US Constitution

Genovevo Salinas was arrested in 2007 and charged with capital murder in the case of a 1992 double-homicide where two brothers were gunned down in a Houston, Texas apartment. 

The first trial ended in a mistrial, but in the second trial new evidence was introduced and the suspect was convicted. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal and decide whether that evidence used against the suspect was admissible, or whether the evidence put before the jury was a violation of his rights.  


Under interrogation by police, Salinas answered questions for approximately an hour before falling silent when asked specific questions about ammunition used in the crime. At the time of his questioning, the suspect was not under arrest and had not been issued his "Miranda warning" informing him of his rights. A police officer testified during the second trial, over the objections of the defense, that Salinas showed signs of deception during that interrogation. 

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."

In other words, SCOTUS must now decide if you have the right to remain silent, under the 5th Amendment, before you have been arrested.  

A report from Reuters states...

"... Texas opposed the appeal, saying that the protection against compulsory self-incrimination is irrelevant when a suspect is under no compulsion to speak, as Salinas was because he was not under arrest and was speaking voluntarily. It also said that any error was harmless."

Now that sounds like a lot of legalese double-speak to me.

Looking into the case a little more on the side, it does appear to me that the guy is probably guilty. The question he refused to answer was later proved through forensics, not testimony of the suspect. But that is not really the question here. How we reach a verdict is as important, if not more important than the verdict itself. Sure, today it is easy to convict a habitual criminal druggie border jumper in what appears to be a pretty much routine open and shut case. What happens though, when this precedent is used to convict someone like yourself perhaps, in a case that is not so clear, and where you might truly be innocent?

So the question today is simply this... Can the police tell a jury you are guilty because of when or how you chose to stop answering their questions?

The state of Texas says yes, that they can now submit as criminal evidence, your refusal to speak with police if you are not under arrest. Imagine, for a moment, the real precedent that is about to be set here.

If SCOTUS rules in favor or Texas, this means that from now on, the police will be able to use your refusal to speak with them, as evidence of a crime. Not only will this be allowed to be submitted to a jury as presumptuous, biased and prejudicial evidence of guilt, but also as grounds for a warrant. In other words, if you refuse to answer the door for police, that could be used as criminal evidence and grounds for a warrant to search your home! Not to mention, of course, many other miscarriages of justices such a ruling could make precedent for.

Where Texas says that their "error was harmless," they are admitting right up front that they did in fact screw up. If, based on the preponderance of other evidence the man still appears guilty to a jury of his peers, then so be it. Let him rot all the rest of his days in a penitentiary. But the Supreme Court must not allow this "harmless error" to set the precedent for all of American justice.

Shame on the Texas prosecutor for even jeopardizing this conviction with such a weak and unconstitutional bit of evidence.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape justice than one guilty person be condemned." ~Blackstone's Formulation

Also see:

Federal Evidence Review





Tweet

No More Than 7 Rounds? We Got This Cuomo!

In light of NYS Governor Cuomo's retarded understanding of firearms and gun safety, we have decided to share some gun porn with you, both to inform the layman and amuse the better informed.

Most semi-automatic pistols today are constructed to hold a standard magazine which exceeds the deluded Governor's 7-round limit. Even a small .22-caliber pistol designed for shooting squirrels and pigeons will usually hold a magazine of 8, 12, even 16 rounds. I wonder, will BB guns now be illegal too, with their 200-round reservoirs of copper death, or my .177-caliber CO2 pistol with 18-shot clip? Technically, I believe so, ridiculously enough.

Essentially, what the Governor has done is shoved NYers back to old wild west technology from two centuries ago, and made NY revolver country once again. Even the trusty .45 semi-auto used by American servicemen in the trenches during World War One, and on up through the modern day as a standard sidearm for professional and personal protection, will now be illegal in New York State. The smaller caliber but ubiquitous 9mm semi-autos, now too, illegal in most models. These new laws have essentially banned all of the most popular models favored by CCW permit holders in New York State, as well as other non-police professionals such as security and bodyguards. (In his haste, the idiot governor has even made it illegal for police, but that is expected to be re-legislated soon.)

Okay Gov, so I can't have a little .22-caliber pea-shooter that holds an 8-round magazine? That's just fine with me. you can take your 7 rounds and even have 2 back. This bitch gets the job done in 5.

That monster is a .50 caliber custom built Super Red Hawk by Ruger. The pistol was re-worked by the customizer to fire special .500 Linebaugh rounds, considered to be the most powerful handgun ammunition in the world. The bullet is so big, that this pistol can only hold 5 rounds, instead of the typical "six-shooter" style common to revolvers.

To get an appreciation of the hitting power we are talking about here, let us do a rough ammo comparison. The AR-15 rifle, made notorious now by several recent murder sprees, uses a .223 caliber round. That is, a round that is less than a quarter-inch in diameter, as compared to the half-inch diameter monsters we are comparing to. In this image just below, is an ammunition magazine being loaded for a military grade version of the same rifle, designated the M-16 with NATO 5.56mm ammunition.

With extensive reworking, the military can also convert the M-16 rifle to fire the special .50-caliber Beowulf cartridge. That round, is roughly the same size as the cartridge fired from the revolver handgun shown above. Here is a comparison of the Beowulf round, as compared to standard "assault rifle" ammunition.

For another way to get an impression of the power we are talking about here in a .50-caliber round, here is a night time photo of a .500 Smith&Wesson Magnum round being fired.

So yeah, basically, fuck you Gubner.

Finally, to really bring the point home, here is a video which displays the hitting power of a 50-caliber round. This compilation video shows US military snipers operating in Afghanistan, hitting live targets, with a single 50-caliber round from distances of a mile or more.

(CAUTION: GRAPHIC IMAGERY)



Be sure to check out:

Bushmaster AR-15 Menace?












Tweet

Audio Leaked In Shooting of Anti-Cop Activist

 http://www.copblock.org/20857/jeffreyweinhaus/


Tweet