Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The court did, however, acknowledge that repeated police questioning after a defendant has asserted their right to silence raises doubts regarding the admissibility of further evidence under the confessions rule, though that was not the finding in the case. [15] Another Supreme Court case, R. v. Hodgson, clarified that the right to silence only ...
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.
People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler Inc.. [2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020. [3] [4]: 36
The Philippines' Supreme Court declared two parts of a controversial anti-terrorism law unconstitutional on Thursday, dismaying activists and rights groups who sought the scrapping of the ...
Salinas v. Texas, 570 US 178 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which the court held 5-4 decision, declaring that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause does not extend to defendants who simply choose to remain silent during questioning, even though no arrest has been made nor the Miranda rights read to a defendant.
It was devised in response to the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Garrity v. New Jersey (1967). In that case, a police officer was compelled to make a statement or be fired, and then criminally prosecuted for his statement. The Supreme Court found that the officer had been deprived of his Fifth Amendment right to silence.
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
In civil trials, adverse inference may be imposed as a sanction by the court in reaction to spoliation, such as willful destruction of relevant emails. In this case, the court may direct a jury to assume that the evidence that was destroyed was negative for the destroying party, i.e., that it was destroyed to hide something. [3]