WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court’s splintered ruling allowing a witness’ pre-arrest silence to be introduced at trial — its latest decision carving out more of the contours of defendants’ well-known right to remain silent — seemed at first blush to be a devastating blow to defense attorneys and their clients.
WASHINGTON — In a major ruling Monday on the breadth of pre-arrest Miranda protections, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a splintered decision that the silence of a person being voluntarily questioned by police can be introduced at trial if the subject did not specifically assert his or her right to remain silent to police.
A high school student suspected of criminal activity was entitled to Miranda warnings before being questioned by an assistant principal in the presence of a law enforcement officer, the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a drug conviction.
WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to struggle with the question of whether the silence of a suspect who has neither been arrested nor placed in police custody can later be used against him at trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the state violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by using a defendant’s court-ordered mental evaluation to rebut his claim that his methamphetamine use prevented him from having the requisite mental state to commit capital murder.
Does the state violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by using a defendant’s court-ordered mental evaluation to rebut his claim that his methamphetamine use prevented him from having the requisite mental state to commit capital murder?
See “» Continue Reading.
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial of a defendant who was acquitted after a judge erroneously added an extra element to the crime, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
An order requiring a tax attorney to surrender records to the Internal Revenue Service did not violate his client’s Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, the 9th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.
A citizen has no obligation to answer an officer’s questions during a consensual encounter, the 10th Circuit has ruled, reversing summary judgment for the officers on qualified immunity grounds in a false arrest suit.