— A divided Supreme Court on Monday enhanced prosecutors' ability to assert that a suspect waived his right to remain silent even when he did not say so.
The decision in a murder case from Michigan broke along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion joined by fellow conservatives.
The four liberals dissented in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former Manhattan prosecutor who warned that, "Today's decision turns Miranda upside down."
The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling — which protects suspects against self-incrimination and requires the warnings police give people in custody to let them know they have the right to remain silent — has been deeply woven into American culture. Yet, it remains controversial, as recent debate over Miranda rights for terrorism suspects shows.
Answer by lovinangels at 2:42 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
Answer by sweet-a-kins at 1:12 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
Answer by Shaneagle777 at 1:49 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
Answer by Anonymous at 1:58 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
Answer by mancosmomma at 2:11 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
Answer by urkiddingright at 2:22 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
Answer by 29again at 2:24 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
disagree with Justice Sotamayor. The gentleman was read his rights, the right to remain silent is just that. You can say I want a lawyer, and they can goad you - you have the choice to remain silent, if you don't, well, your screwed.
I agree, didn't we all play this game as kids? LOL..who could stay quiet the longest?? LOL
Answer by sweet-a-kins at 2:26 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
He was read his Miranda rights. If he wanted to remain silent, he shouldn't have opened his mouth to speak. Seems pretty simple to me.
As long as they are READ their rights, then I don't really see an issue...you CHOOSE to open your mouth...that's YOUR choice....
Answer by sweet-a-kins at 2:27 PM on Jun. 1, 2010
Answer by lovinangels at 2:49 PM on Jun. 1, 2010