I plead the The 5th

I plead the The 5th

This is a discussion on I plead the The 5th within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Regardless of this mans guilt or innocence, the way I read it, the courts used evidence produced by this man to incriminate himself. Isnt that ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By ZOMBIEvs42
  • 2 Post By De5115
  • 1 Post By lionround
  • 1 Post By oakchas
  • 2 Post By OldVet

Thread: I plead the The 5th

  1. #1
    Member Array ZOMBIEvs42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    478

    I plead the The 5th

    Regardless of this mans guilt or innocence, the way I read it, the courts used evidence produced by this man to incriminate himself.

    Isnt that protected in our constitution?

    It's "common" knowledge that after you have been read your rights, anything you say can could be used in court against you.
    So, the way the courts interperated this, is that the mans body language and silence indicated to the police that he was guilty, then they read him his rights, and he lawyer'd up. In court, they used his body laguage and his silence as an indication of guilt and went on to convict him of the crime.

    My problem is that why do we have to be told what are rights are before they go into effect?

    This "loophole" (for lack of a better term) the courts are trying to exploit could affect every one of our rights.
    What do yall think of this?

    Your Miranda Right to Silence Might Now Get You Into Trouble - USA Carry
    StormRhydr likes this.
    weekend pre-apocolypse nomadic warrior, leather duster and all.


  2. #2
    Member Array De5115's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Lost Wages, NV
    Posts
    151
    It's hard to form a true bias from 1 article. But after reading it I'm thinking that this is a desperate attempt of a murderer to get away with murder based on a technicality. I have a feeling that the prosecutor had a much stronger case than what is mentioned in the article. Otherwise a jury probably wouldn't have convicted him.
    Stirling XD and Tzadik like this.
    Evil I!
    Wildhorse!
    Battle Born!


  3. #3
    VIP Member Array lionround's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    2,045
    From what I read, he answered questions up to a point. When asked about the shotgun shells, he remained silent. He then answered other questions after that. He never invoked his 5th Amendment right to silence, he just didn't answer.

    He should have asked, "Am I under arrest?" If the answer is yes, they have to Mirandize him; if the answer is no, he should have walked out.

    I have to agree with DE51115, there is more to this story than meets the eye.
    Tzadik likes this.
    If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
    -- Steven Wright
    1950 Colt .38 Police Positive Special
    2013 SCCY 9mm CPX-2 Stainless Steel
    US Army 1973-1977, 95B

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,558
    I Am Not A Lawyer.

    I don't know the answer to this one.

    If you shut up at the scene of a crime which was perpetrated against you and you had to use your firearm to protect yourself, resulting in a dead criminal... What then?

    Police: Did this guy attack you?
    You: stoic, stonefaced and clenching fists, mouth shut. (might mean no, might mean yes)
    Police: Did you shoot him after he tried to rob you?
    You: stoic, stonefaced and clenching fists, mouth shut. (might mean no, might mean yes)
    Police: Would the shell casings at your feet fit your gun?, The bullets in his body match your gun?
    You: stoic, stonefaced and clenching fists, mouth shut. (might mean no, might mean yes)
    Police: You have the right to remain silent.....
    You: "I want a lawyer."
    ...
    Judge: Guilty of Murder!

    So, do you say, from the very arrival of the Police, "I want to cooperate fully, but will only do so after I have spoken with counsel."

    That doesn't stop them from asking the questions, and coming to the same conclusions... but it would appear that it keeps them from using your stoic, stonefaced demeanor and you clenched fists in the courtroom...

    Interesting..... verrrrrry interesting... and Not funny. Hmmm.
    lionround likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  5. #5
    Member Array ZOMBIEvs42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    478
    Oh, dont get me wrong guys this guy is a scum bag and desrves whatever he gets, my only concern with this case is that it appears that the judge ruled that your rights are only applicable if you "invoke" or get them read to you, are my rights not already invoked/started/applied whatever when i became a citizen? why would i have to tell everyone i know what my rights are?
    weekend pre-apocolypse nomadic warrior, leather duster and all.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array lionround's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Interesting..... verrrrrry interesting... and Not funny. Hmmm.
    OK, I got the Laugh-In reference.
    If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
    -- Steven Wright
    1950 Colt .38 Police Positive Special
    2013 SCCY 9mm CPX-2 Stainless Steel
    US Army 1973-1977, 95B

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,496
    You do not have to incriminate yourself. This does not mean that you can't answer ANY questions. You could answer some, choose not to answer others that may lead to self incrimination, and then answer some more. You don't have to say "I plead the 5th" before remaining silent, and you don't have to remain silent at all times once you've decided not to answer a few questions.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,558
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    You do not have to incriminate yourself. This does not mean that you can't answer ANY questions. You could answer some, choose not to answer others that may lead to self incrimination, and then answer some more. You don't have to say "I plead the 5th" before remaining silent, and you don't have to remain silent at all times once you've decided not to answer a few questions.

    That ain't what the decision says... effectively, the way I read it, anyway (see previous disclaimers on my Juris Doctor status) your not answering certain questions might incriminate you if you have not plead the fifth before answering any questions. Based on your body language... if little else.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  9. #9
    Member Array TDH1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    420
    If the man pleaded the 5th and they are going to use body language against him I think would set a president. I was him if convicted I would carry it all the way to the supreme court. But he could spend years in jail doing this. America is standing on a slippery slope more and more everyday we are being treated like subjects and not like citizens. When Obummer says the people are to stupid to manage there on health care there is something wrong with that. When you sign up for Obummer Care and you don't make a certain amount of money you are placed on Medicaid automaticly. More and More DRs. are not taking Medicaid because they don't get paid there outrageous fees. There has been 90 million Americans dropped from there insurance plan because it didn't meet Obummer Care standers. When they tried to reapply there policies were going to double or triple. Obummer should be on that list for impeachment that they are bring before the House on Holder.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,496
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    That ain't what the decision says... effectively, the way I read it, anyway (see previous disclaimers on my Juris Doctor status) your not answering certain questions might incriminate you if you have not plead the fifth before answering any questions. Based on your body language... if little else.
    Well, I disagree with the premise. The answer to certain questions could be seen in such a way to appear incriminatory, despite being innocent. Not-answering is not an admission of guilt - regardless of how it may appear.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,321
    I seriously doubt he was convicted of anything based solely on "pre-Miranda Rights" body language. As for NOT saying anything to LEOs, if you don't give them a reason to think you are not guilty, they may very well assume you are and conduct their investigation accordingly. After all, there's a dead man lying there and you have a gun.

    What some don't know or refuse to believe is it was Zimmerman's cooperation with LE that lead to the original DA deciding to NOT press charges due to lack of evidence of a crime. The arrest came only after public pressure stirred up a hornets nest.
    De5115 and 357and40 like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,344
    It really does read, at least to this layman, like they expect you to be required to expressly invoke your right. I wonder when we'll be required to expressly invoke the rest of the bill of rights... "Honorable Alito, I hereby declare my right to free speech... I'm going to continue to speak. Would you please pass the coffee creamer?"

    369 S. W. 3d 176, affirmed. JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY, concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’squestion. Pp. 3−12.
    (a) To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shielding information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relieson it. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 427. This Court has recognized two exceptions to that requirement. First, a criminal defendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his owntrial. Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 613–615. Petitioner’s silence falls outside this exception because he had no comparable unqualified right not to speak during his police interview. Second, a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege against self-incriminationmust be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. See, e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467−468, and n. 37. Petitioner cannot benefit from this principle
    2 SALINAS v. TEXAS
    Syllabus
    because it is undisputed that he agreed to accompany the officers tothe station and was free to leave at any time. Pp. 3−6.
    (b)
    Petitioner seeks a third exception to the express invocation requirement for cases where the witness chooses to stand mute ratherthan give an answer that officials suspect would be incriminating, but this Court’s cases all but foreclose that argument. A defendant normally does not invoke the privilege by remaining silent. See Roberts v. United States, 445 U. S. 552, 560. And the express invocationrequirement applies even when an official has reason to suspect thatthe answer to his question would incriminate the witness. See Murphy, supra, at 427−428. For the same reasons that neither a witness’ silence nor official suspicion is sufficient by itself to relieve a witnessof the obligation to expressly invoke the privilege, they do not do so together. The proposed exception also would be difficult to reconcile with Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U. S. 370, where this Court held in the closely related context of post-Miranda silence that a defendant failed to invoke his right to cut off police questioning when he remained silent for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Id., at ___.
    Petitioner claims that reliance on the Fifth Amendment privilege isthe most likely explanation for silence in a case like his, but such silence is “insolubly ambiguous.” See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610, 617. To be sure, petitioner might have declined to answer the officer’s question in reliance on his constitutional privilege. But he also mighthave done so because he was trying to think of a good lie, because he was embarrassed, or because he was protecting someone else. Not every such possible explanation for silence is probative of guilt, butneither is every possible explanation protected by the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner also suggests that it would be unfair to require a suspect unschooled in the particulars of legal doctrine to do anythingmore than remain silent in order to invoke his “right to remain silent.” But the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be“compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” notan unqualified “right to remain silent.” In any event, it is settledthat forfeiture of the privilege against self-incrimination need not beknowing. Murphy, 465 U. S., at 427–428. Pp. 6−10.
    (c)
    Petitioner’s argument that applying the express invocation requirement in this context will be unworkable is also unpersuasive. The Court has long required defendants to assert the privilege in order to subsequently benefit from it, and this rule has not proved difficult to apply in practice. Pp. 10−12.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  13. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    11,472
    Here is what the Fifth Amendment says:

    "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."

    In this particular case, it appears the person being questioned incriminated himself voluntarily.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,134
    I think this is a bad decision. A persons body lanhuage can be interpetated 10 different ways by 10 different people. This isnt science, it's opinion. A failure to answer a question is no evidence of anything other than the subject didnt answer. Is it possible the subject didnt understand the question? A citizen has the right to protect his own penal interest and to refuse to give evidence against himself. That citizen dont have to wait until he or she is mirandized... that protection exists the moment we are born.

    IMO this is shoddy police work backed up by poor jurisprudence.

    It sucks.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,558
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    Well, I disagree with the premise. The answer to certain questions could be seen in such a way to appear incriminatory, despite being innocent. Not-answering is not an admission of guilt - regardless of how it may appear.
    But the SCOTUS has said that THAT is the premise. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I seriously doubt he was convicted of anything based solely on "pre-Miranda Rights" body language. As for NOT saying anything to LEOs, if you don't give them a reason to think you are not guilty, they may very well assume you are and conduct their investigation accordingly. After all, there's a dead man lying there and you have a gun.

    See Below

    What some don't know or refuse to believe is it was Zimmerman's cooperation with LE that lead to the original DA deciding to NOT press charges due to lack of evidence of a crime. The arrest came only after public pressure stirred up a hornets nest.
    I can agree with that, but Z was "lucky in the first case, and not so much in the second.

    Quote Originally Posted by Secret Spuk View Post
    I think this is a bad decision. A persons body lanhuage can be interpetated 10 different ways by 10 different people. This isnt science, it's opinion. A failure to answer a question is no evidence of anything other than the subject didnt answer. Is it possible the subject didnt understand the question? A citizen has the right to protect his own penal interest and to refuse to give evidence against himself. That citizen dont have to wait until he or she is mirandized... that protection exists the moment we are born.

    Apparently, SCOTUS doesn't feel we were born with it...

    IMO this is shoddy police work backed up by poor jurisprudence.

    It sucks.
    I agree it's shoddy police work followed by lousy jurisprudence. But now the Supremes have apparently made it so that you must invoke your 5th amendment right pretty much immediately.

    369 S. W. 3d 176, affirmed. JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY, concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’squestion. Pp. 3−12.

    (a) To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shielding information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies on it. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 427. This Court has recognized two exceptions to that requirement. First, a criminal defendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his owntrial. Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 613–615. Petitioner’s silence falls outside this exception because he had no comparable unqualified right not to speak during his police interview. Second, a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege against self-incriminationmust be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. See, e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467−468, and n. 37. Petitioner cannot benefit from this principle
    2 SALINAS v. TEXAS
    Syllabus
    because it is undisputed that he agreed to accompany the officers tothe station and was free to leave at any time. Pp. 3−6.
    (b)

    Petitioner seeks a third exception to the express invocation requirement for cases where the witness chooses to stand mute rather than give an answer that officials suspect would be incriminating, but this Court’s cases all but foreclose that argument. A defendant normally does not invoke the privilege by remaining silent. See Roberts v. United States, 445 U. S. 552, 560. And the express invocationrequirement applies even when an official has reason to suspect thatthe answer to his question would incriminate the witness. See Murphy, supra, at 427−428. For the same reasons that neither a witness’ silence nor official suspicion is sufficient by itself to relieve a witnessof the obligation to expressly invoke the privilege, they do not do so together. The proposed exception also would be difficult to reconcile with Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U. S. 370, where this Court held in the closely related context of post-Miranda silence that a defendant failed to invoke his right to cut off police questioning when he remained silent for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Id., at ___.

    Petitioner claims that reliance on the Fifth Amendment privilege isthe most likely explanation for silence in a case like his, but such silence is “insolubly ambiguous.” See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610, 617. To be sure, petitioner might have declined to answer the officer’s question in reliance on his constitutional privilege. But he also might have done so because he was trying to think of a good lie, because he was embarrassed, or because he was protecting someone else. Not every such possible explanation for silence is probative of guilt, butneither is every possible explanation protected by the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner also suggests that it would be unfair to require a suspect unschooled in the particulars of legal doctrine to do anything more than remain silent in order to invoke his “right to remain silent.” But the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be“compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” not an unqualified “right to remain silent.” In any event, it is settled that forfeiture of the privilege against self-incrimination need not be knowing. Murphy, 465 U. S., at 427–428. Pp. 6−10.
    (c)
    Petitioner’s argument that applying the express invocation requirement in this context will be unworkable is also unpersuasive. The Court has long required defendants to assert the privilege in order to subsequently benefit from it, and this rule has not proved difficult to apply in practice. Pp. 10−12.

    So, you can't just shut up... you have to tell them you are invoking the 5th amendment, and that anything you say (or may not say) may not be used to incriminate yourself.

    Wow... It seems a stretch to me... but apparently it's well covered in case law... wow...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can i plead the fifth as a witness if i want case dropped
,

i plead the 5th amendment

,
is saying i plead the fifth an invocation of rights
,
plead the fifth mean
,
plead the fifth meaning
,
pleading the 5th?
Click on a term to search for related topics.