A recent MN Supreme Court case has held that a defendant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence can be used against him in the state's case-in-chief.
Because that makes a lot of sense.
Do they have an opinion on rendering a verdict based on reading the entrails of a chicken? After all, if people are finally realizing that talking to cops is a very, very bad idea, finally after the 45 years since Miranda v. Arizona, why not just randomly change all of the rules again?
Hmm...I'm not even sure I know what this means...so, you have the right to remain silent but, if you choose to do so, we'll assume that means your guilty and will use it against you??
Do they have an opinion on rendering a verdict based on reading the entrails of a chicken? After all, if people are finally realizing that talking to cops is a very, very bad idea, finally after the 45 years since Miranda v. Arizona, why not just randomly change all of the rules again?
ReplyDeleteHmm...I'm not even sure I know what this means...so, you have the right to remain silent but, if you choose to do so, we'll assume that means your guilty and will use it against you??
ReplyDeleteWTF is up with that?