http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
Is it true? I guess not. Consider Berghuis v. Thompkins:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf
Additional analysis here:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Berghuis_v._Thompkins
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that "after giving a Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights," according to Justice Anthony Kennedy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280392747737022.html
Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion ["joined," as James Taranto said, "by three other justices (if you guess who they are, you will be correct)"]:
"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent--which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."
Did you follow that? I wonder if Sotomayor realizes that a person can invoke their right to remain silent by ... wait for it ... simply remaining silent. Reminds me of the classic quote: You can lead a liberal to wisdom, but you can't make them think.
No comments:
Post a Comment