Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.
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.
In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Stewart on December 9, 1975, the Supreme Court sided with Michigan and remanded the case. The Court held that the questioning on a different crime did not violate Mosley's right to remain silent. The Court reasoned that his Fifth Amendment rights were scrupulously honored when he ended questioning ...
[3] [note 2] However, after the trial in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court had issued its opinion in Griffin v. California, striking down the part of the California Constitution that allowed prosecutors to comment on defendants' failure to testify (as a violation of the Fifth Amendment's right to silence). There was no question that the prosecution ...
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 ...
The Fifth Amendment is not violated by the use of prearrest silence to impeach a criminal defendant's credibility. Court membership; Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens: Case opinions
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, police must cease custodial interrogation. Re-interrogation is only permissible once defendant's counsel has been made available to him, or he himself initiates further ...