
	Where results make sense

Topic: Right to silence

Related Topics

Miranda warning

Police officer

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Arrest

Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

Common law

Criminal justice

United Kingdom referendum on the European Constitution

State of Emergency in India

Interview

Devolution

Star Chamber

Northern Ireland

Cremation

Queen Elizabeth II

In the News (Fri 25 Jul 08)

Gordon Brown

Derby County

Mike Huckabee

Lute Olson

Pearl Harbor

Sonia Gandhi

Ricky Hatton

Narendra Modi

Jesus Christ

Rudy Giuliani

	Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The right to silence during actual trial was well established in common law, the defendant was "incompetent" to give evidence and attempts to force answers, such as the efforts of the Star Chamber were judged unlawful - although often later than some individuals may have hoped.
		However the right was already well established by case law as was the necessity of no adverse comments, the principle being that the defendant does not have to prove their innocence - the burden of evidence rests on the prosecution.
		In common law procedural systems the defendant has a right to silence, but if he waives that right to silence he is subject to cross-examination by a professional advocate whose goal it is to present the defendant's statements in the worst possible light.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Right_to_silence (2242 words)

	Silence Can't Be Used As Evidence Of Guilt
		The right to silence would be illusory if the decision not to speak to the police could be used by the Crown as evidence of guilt, or "state of mind" evidence from which guilt could be inferred.
		It is a right premised on an individual's freedom to choose the extent of his or her cooperation with the police, and is animated by a recognition of the potentially coercive impact of the state's authority and a concern that individuals not be required to incriminate themselves.
		Where evidence of silence is admitted, juries must be instructed about the proper purpose for which the evidence was admitted, the impermissible inferences which must not be drawn from evidence of silence, the limited probative value of silence, and the dangers of relying on such evidence.
	www.justice.gov.ab.ca /downloads/documentloader.aspx?id=46321 (824 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		The right to silence in court forms a guarantor of the presumption of innocence in that it forces the burden of proof fully onto the prosecution to base its case on solid evidence rather than to either trick, intimidate or confuse the accused into incriminating themselves or making contradictory statements that undermine their credibility.
		The right to silence in custody also forms a guarantor of the presumption of innocence by forcing the police to find solid evidence linking the accused to the crime rather than try and trick or intimidate the accused into incriminating themselves.
		Removing the right to silence, or allowing inferences to be drawn from silence, does not eliminate the possibility of criminals getting away with their crimes but merely substitutes one way of doing it for another.
	www.tardis.ed.ac.uk /~james/politics/Right2Silence (1151 words)

	Canada, R v. Hebert
		The right to remain silent, which is designed to shield an accused from the unequal power of the prosecution, arises when the coercive power of the state is brought to bear against the individual, either formally (by arrest or charge) or informally (by detention or accusation).
		Once the right to remain silent attaches, any communication between an accused and an agent of the state (including a suborned informer) is subject to the right and may proceed only if the accused waives the right; but communication between an accused and another private individual is not subject to the right.
		This right, which arises whenever the coercive power of the state is brought to bear upon the citizen, must be given a generous interpretation to fulfill its purpose.
	www.hrcr.org /safrica/arrested_rights/hebert.html (1825 words)

	No. 02-0847
		Thus, to invoke the right to silence, a criminal suspect must "articulate his or her desire to remain silent or to cut off questioning sufficiently clearly" that a reasonable officer would understand the statement to be an invocation of the right to silence.
		The unequivocal right to terminate questioning during an interrogation is an extension of the prophylactic Miranda rules established to safeguard the constitutional right against compulsory self-incrimination.
		Accordingly, the failure to honor the right to silence, "unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect's ability to exercise his free will," is insufficient to result in an imputation of taint to subsequent statements or evidence gathered.
	www.wisbar.org /res/capp/2003/02-0847.htm (5420 words)

	Canada, R. v. Crawford
		When the right is asserted by accused persons in a joint trial, regard must be had for the effect of the public interest in joint trials with respect to charges arising out of a common enterprise.
		The right to silence must mean that a suspect has the right to refuse to talk to the police and not be penalized for it.
		If pre-trial silence can lead to a negative inference as to credibility, the accused is placed in the anomalous situation of being obliged to make a prior consistent statement in order to avoid cross-examination on his silence, but being unable to tender that evidence in support of his own credibility.
	www.hrcr.org /safrica/arrested_rights/crawford.html (1132 words)

	Argument from silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, in consideration of individual motives.
		The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ.
		In some legislative systems juries are explicitly instructed not to infer anything because of an accused silence, the right to silence.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Argument_from_silence (402 words)

	Right to Silence - Part IV - Sally Ramage - LegalDay (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		In the legal systems of France, Germany, the UK and the USA, a defendant has the right to silence in that throughout the entirety of the criminal proceedings he or she has the right to refuse to answer questions, and may not be exposed to criminal sanctions for exercising this right.
		In the United States the right to silence exists in the double sense £ a person may not be punished for his refusal to talk, nor may he be judged guilty of the offence of which he is accused in consequence of his refusal to talk.
		As to UK trials, although a person has the right not to say anything at his trial from start to finish, in theory, the jury are usually exhorted to apply their common sense to a case.
	www.legalday.com /commentaries/sally-ramage/right-to-silence-part-iv.html (3378 words)

	Munson v. State (11/18/2005) sp-5959
		Munsons constitutionally-protected right to silence attached as soon as he said Im done talkin, and at that point the interrogator was bound to scrupulously honor Munsons request.
		In the alternative, he argued that if his invocation of his right to silence was ambiguous or equivocal, then the officers were obliged to clarify the ambiguity before proceeding with the interview.
		The repeated nature of the suspects refusals was an important factor underlying the courts conclusion that the suspect had unambiguously asserted her right to silence: Tinas lawyer does not deny that an invocation of the right to silence, if it is to be effective, must be unambiguous as well.
	touchngo.com /sp/html/sp-5959.htm (10618 words)

	1-04-0074, People v. Hernandez
		The State further argues that the circuit court could not have erred in failing to suppress the videotaped statement based upon defendant's invocation of his right to silence because that argument was never presented as a basis for suppression and defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise that basis.
		Upon being informed of his rights, including his right to silence, defendant was asked whether, "[u]nderstanding these rights, [he] wish[ed] to talk to [them] now." Defendant responded, "No, not no more." Though it is possible that defendant was being facetious, without the videotape it is impossible to tell.
		In the instant case, defendant failed to raise his invocation of his right to silence in his motion to suppress his statements, object at trial to the admission of his videotaped statement, or specifically include this issue in his posttrial motion for a new trial.
	www.state.il.us /court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/December/Html/1040074.htm (2932 words)

	Law Spot - The Right to Silence
		The Northern Territory may become the first Australian jurisdiction to suspend the right of an arrested person to remain silent - or at least allow the fact of the refusal to be mentioned in court.
		The context is important, because tussles over the right to silence are favourite fare for electioneering politicians.
		The right to silence doesn’t stop the prosecution from proving their case, so long as they have more evidence to rely on than an admission of guilt – and that, of course, is their job.
	www.law4u.com.au /lil/ls_silence.html (635 words)

	Right to Silence - Part III - Sally Ramage - LegalDay (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		So to properly protect use of the privilege, it is prohibited to cross-examine the defendant on the subject of earlier silence and it is prohibited for prosecutors or judges to comment to the jury on inferences which may be drawn from a defendant£s failure to testify.
		The Americans discuss the right to silence around the Fifth Amendment which states that £no person£ shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself£.
		The Miranda case judgement is a reaffirmation of the importance of right to silence and it expresses the Supreme Court£s recognition of the importance of judicial integrity and impartiality.
	www.legalday.com /commentaries/Sally-ramage/right-to-silence-part-iii.html (3432 words)

	Law Of Evidence Essay Writing Samples - The Right to Silence
		The accused has a right to silence in a criminal trial, however the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 stipulates that adverse inferences may be drawn from this silence.
		Section 34 covers silence as regards a fact that are later relied upon by the accused in relation to his defence.
		Furthermore the accused must not have been denied the right to a solicitor, and the fact must be one that the accused could be reasonably be said to be expected to mention in the circumstances existing at the time.
	www.law-essays-uk.com /essaysamples/evidencelawessay/silence.htm (964 words)

	David Farrar: The right to silence (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		My understanding of the right of to silence is that an accused person does not have to provide details apart from those that allow enforcement officers to establish identity.
		The right to silence was established at a time when there was no educational facilities for children of the poor (thats most of them)and so were unable to express themselves and punishment was either corporal or capital..Now-adays all offenders get education and legal aid, and seldom any punishment.Criminals have everything going for them.
		The right to silence clearly makes things more sdifficult for the police and it is the experienced hardened criminal who abuse the right to make it hard to get convictions.
	www.kiwiblog.co.nz /archives/012309.html (2536 words)

	ABD - Right to Silence
		The right to silence is one claim of the 1689 Bill of Rights and is inherent under Article 6 of the European Convention of 1951 to which Britain has been a signatory since 1953.
		No lawyer or court could sensibly argue that the right to silence does not exist, or that the NIP procedure is anything but duress to secure self-incrimination, or that this is not a breach of the fundamental right to silence.
		Brown's right of silence defence succeeded in having her self-incrimination in a drink-driving (not speed camera) case declared inadmissible as evidence, in the Scottish High Court (5th November 1999 and 6th/7th January 2000).
	www.abd.org.uk /righttosilence.htm (4145 words)

	SSRN-On the Ethics of Exporting Ethics: The Right to Silence in Japan and the U.S. by Kenneth Winston
		To facilitate this appreciation, the essay assesses standard justifications of the right to silence in the U.S. and discusses the duty of confession in a context more accessible to U.S. scholars - college tribunals - which is a resource for reflecting on Japanese practice.
		Connecting these different contexts is the claim that, in determining whether a right (such as the right to silence) should be recognized or not, the crucial determinant is the nature of valued relationships.
		Winston, Kenneth, "On the Ethics of Exporting Ethics: The Right to Silence in Japan and the U.S." (June 2003).
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=421180 (359 words)

	Right To Silence To Go On Range Of Serious Crimes (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		The right to silence is currently only curbed in terrorist or drug trafficking cases.
		This group was told to examine any constitutional complications or legal difficulties under the European Convention on Human Rights which might arise by curtailing the right to silence in serious criminal cases.
		The right to silence is one of a number of issues which arose and the working group was set up in the aftermath of that," a Department of Justice spokesman confirmed yesterday.
	www.mapinc.org /drugnews/v98.n828.a04.html (622 words)

	Essay or Coursework - The right of silence may be exercised at three stages in the criminal process.
		Essay or Coursework - The right of silence may be exercised at three stages in the criminal process.
		The right of silence may be exercised at three stages in the criminal process.
		Of the tiny percentage of suspects who do exercise their right of silence, the great majority are convicted.
	www.coursework.info /i/28456.html (412 words)

	[No title]
		The right to silence is a right, limited but significant, to withhold assistance and co-operation from the state.
		The idea that the right of compulsory process entails the duty to obey a subpoena, however reluctantly, causes so little controversy in Anglo-American law that neither Haig Bosmajian's account of coerced speech nor Susan Easton's analysis of self-incrimination law discusses it.
		rights talk as "nonsense upon stilts" and his opposition to the right of silence as to defenses of rights by Ronald Dworkin and Denis Galligan.
	www.bsos.umd.edu /gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/bosmajin.html (1725 words)

	Defendants Have Right to Silence (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		Holding such defendants' silence against them would impose ``an impermissible burden on the exercise of the constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination,'' the court ruled 5-4 in a Pennsylvania drug case.
		He added, however, that the justices were not deciding whether such defendants' silence at sentencing could be viewed as showing a lack of remorse.
		Amanda Mitchell of Allentown, Pa., invoked that right in refusing to testify at a sentencing hearing about the extent of her involvement in a cocaine-selling ring.
	www.geocities.com /SiliconValley/Hills/9579/silent00.html (542 words)

	Tomas Kohl :: The right to silence (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		The right to reply is a particularly appropriate remedy in the online environment, as contested information can be instantly corrected and replies from those concerned can easily be attached.
		Meaning: you publish slander on your blog, and the politico in question has a right not only to comment; you're gonna have to give him a login/password to your MT installation so that his vociferous blurb gets equal coverage.
		Those who feel the need to reply to every even remotely unfavorable article are usually fun to watch as they self-desctruct trying to prove their innocence.
	tomaskohl.com /blog/archive/489.html (168 words)

	Back Room: Right to Silence court case Monday, and publicity
		In a normal criminal case a suspect has the right to silence and to choose not to answer a police officer's questions.
		In law right to silence applies to anyone who has reason to believe he might be a suspect, (ie not just from when he is told he is or charged) He ceases to be at risk only if he can prove it was not him, not just when hje says so without proof.
		It is a question of balance of the rights and power (and unlimited cah) of the state against the individual.
	www.honestjohn.co.uk /forum/post?t=5122 (11197 words)

	portland imc - 2003.05.28 - Supreme Court trims right to silence
		The United States Supreme Court has narrowed the historic right against self-incrimination, ruling that police and government investigators can force people to talk, as long as those admissions are not used to prosecute them.
		The officers who shot Oliverio Martinez in the face and back, paralysing and blinding him, can be sued for using excessive force, and possibly for "outrageous conduct" at the hospital, the court said.
		Similarly, unwilling witnesses called before investigating committees had the right to "plead the Fifth Amendment" and thereafter refuse to testify.
	portland.indymedia.org /en/2003/05/265576.shtml (400 words)

	Guantanamo leader invokes right to silence
		Geoffrey Miller invoked the military’s version of the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself, a move that was defended yesterday by the military’s top commander.
		Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Pentagon reporters that while he expects military leaders to do the right thing, that does not mean they should lose their constitutional rights.
		His decision to invoke his Article 31 rights - which are similar to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination - affects two general court-martial proceedings scheduled for the coming weeks.
	www.showmenews.com /2006/Jan/20060113News015.asp (436 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)