Re: Miranda minged?

["Larry Seltzer" <larry () larryseltzer com>]

Putting aside for the moment the fact that is really has nothing to do
with funsec, the dissenting complaint is beside the point. You don't
have to speak to invoke your right to remain silent. You just have to
remain silent.

The guy was invoking that right for all the time he was silent, and then
he stopped invoking it. If he had said he was invoking his rights then
they wouldn't have been able to question him further (without his lawyer
present) but all he did was shut up. 

-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
On Behalf Of Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:26 PM
To: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: [funsec] Miranda minged?

I came across a very interesting article today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487048756045752803927477370
22.html

It relates to the Miranda decision and warning.  Although this is
American case law 
everybody knows about it, since it is the basis of the warning, on every
cop show 
and movie, that the suspect has "the right to remain silent" etc.

This comes from a decision in 1966 that police must ensure a suspect
understands 
his rights (not to incriminate himself) and waives them only "knowingly
and 
intelligently."

Now comes a case where a suspect was warned, and was then questioned for
nearly 
three hours, during which time he said almost nothing. A detective then
began 
asking the suspect about his religious beliefs: "Do you pray to God to
forgive you 
for shooting that boy down?"  The suspect said, "Yes," but refused to
make any 
further confession. The prosecution introduced the statement as
evidence, and a 
jury convicted. 

The case was appealed and went to the US Supreme Court.

Four justices held that allowing the statement turns Miranda upside down
and that 
criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain 
silent-which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak.

However, five justices held that after giving a Miranda warning, police
may 
interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights.

So, I guess the right not to incriminate, in the US, is now opt-in only.

======================  (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade () vcn bc ca     slade () victoria tc ca     rslade () computercrime org
I'm out of my mind just now, but if you'd care to leave a message...
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/slade/index.html
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
http://www.infosecbc.org/links http://twitter.com/rslade

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.