Blog:Main/Right Against Self-Incrimination Before Arrest - Revision history

Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

2013-08-09T19:06:53Z

Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Stacy.m.duclos@opds.state.or.us at 00:00, January 18, 2013

2013-01-18T00:00:20Z

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 17:30, January 17, 2013

2013-01-17T17:30:38Z

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 17:30, January 17, 2013

2013-01-17T17:30:20Z

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 17:30, January 17, 2013

2013-01-17T17:30:01Z

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com: Created page with "

2013-01-17T17:27:49Z

Created page with "<summary hidden> There is a pending petition for cert with SCOTUS with the following issue: [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/ ''Salinas v. Texas''..."

New page

<summary hidden>
There is a pending petition for cert with SCOTUS with the following issue:

[http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/ ''Salinas v. Texas'']

</summary>
There is a pending petition for cert with SCOTUS with the following issue:

[http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/ ''Salinas v. Texas'']

'''''Issue''''': Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights.

From the petition:

This Court, however, has never decided “whether or under what circumstances prearrest silence” in the face of law enforcement questioning “may be
protected by the Fifth Amendment.” Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 236 n.2 (1980) (emphasis added). (This issue turns solely on the Fifth Amendment, not due process, because it does not involve any governmental promise other than the one contained in the Self-Incrimination Clause itself.) As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted in this case, “the courts that have weighed in on the issue” – specifically, whether the Fifth Amendment prohibits the prosecution from using such silence as substantive evidence of guilt – “are split” and have frequently noted this “split and the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court.” Pet. App. 4a-5a; see also id. 20a-22a & n.2; State v. Kulzer, 979 A.2d 1031, 269-71 (Vt. 2009) (describing the split as of a few years ago).

2. A majority of the federal appellate and state high courts to address the issue – ten in all – have held that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the prosecutor from commenting, as part of its case-in chief, on a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he was arrested or
Mirandized.

So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted cert? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, August 9, 2013
Line 19:		Line 19:

	So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.		So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.
−	{{wl-publish: 2013-01-11 09:30:20 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2013-01-11 09:30:20 -0800 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:00, January 18, 2013
Line 19:		Line 19:

	So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.		So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.
−	{{wl-publish: 2013-01-17 09:30:20 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2013-01-11 09:30:20 -0800 \| Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, January 17, 2013
Line 19:		Line 19:

	So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.		So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.
−	{{wl-publish: 2013-01-17 09:30:20 -0800 \| ~~Jwestover~~ }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2013-01-17 09:30:20 -0800 \| Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, January 17, 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:
	:2. A majority of the federal appellate and state high courts to address the issue – ten in all – have held that the Fifth :Amendment prohibits the prosecutor from commenting, as part of its case-in chief, on a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he was arrested or Mirandized.		:2. A majority of the federal appellate and state high courts to address the issue – ten in all – have held that the Fifth :Amendment prohibits the prosecutor from commenting, as part of its case-in chief, on a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he was arrested or Mirandized.

		+
	So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.		So a general question: why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''? Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.
		+	{{wl-publish: 2013-01-17 09:30:20 -0800 \| Jwestover }}

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/ ''Salinas v. Texas'']
-'''''Issue''''': Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights.
+'''''Issue'':''' Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his ''Miranda'' rights.
 From the petition:
-    This Court, however, has never decided “whether or under what circumstances prearrest silence” in the face of law enforcement questioning “may be
+:This Court, however, has never decided “whether or under what circumstances prearrest silence” in the face of law :enforcement questioning “may be protected by the Fifth Amendment.” ''Jenkins v. Anderson'', 447 U.S. 231, 236 n.2 (1980) (emphasis added). (This issue turns solely on the Fifth Amendment, not due process, because it does not involve any governmental promise other than the one contained in the Self-Incrimination Clause itself.) As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted in this case, “the courts that have weighed in on the issue” – specifically, whether the Fifth Amendment prohibits the prosecution from using such silence as substantive evidence of guilt – “are split” and have frequently noted this “split and the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court.” Pet. App. 4a-5a; see also id. 20a-22a & n.2; ''State v. Kulzer'', 979 A.2d 1031, 269-71 (Vt. 2009) (describing the split as of a few years ago).
-    protected by the Fifth Amendment.” Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 236 n.2 (1980) (emphasis added). (This issue turns solely on the Fifth Amendment, not due process, because it does not involve any governmental promise other than the one contained in the Self-Incrimination Clause itself.) As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted in this case, “the courts that have weighed in on the issue” – specifically, whether the Fifth Amendment prohibits the prosecution from using such silence as substantive evidence of guilt – “are split” and have frequently noted this “split and the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court.” Pet. App. 4a-5a; see also id. 20a-22a & n.2; State v. Kulzer, 979 A.2d 1031, 269-71 (Vt. 2009) (describing the split as of a few years ago).
-. A majority of the federal appellate and state high courts to address the issue – ten in all – have held that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the prosecutor from commenting, as part of its case-in chief, on a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he was arrested or
+:2. A majority of the federal appellate and state high courts to address the issue – ten in all – have held that the Fifth :Amendment prohibits the prosecutor from commenting, as part of its case-in chief, on a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he was arrested or Mirandized.
-    Mirandized.
+So a general question:  why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted ''cert''?   Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.
 So a general question:  why highlight and quote a brief that is unlikely -- statistically -- to be granted cert?   Because (1) it might help you recognize an issue you hadn't really thought of before, and (2) the federal case law can still be pretty persuasive in state court.

Blog:Main/Right Against Self-Incrimination Before Arrest - Revision history

Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Stacy.m.duclos@opds.state.or.us at 00:00, January 18, 2013

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 17:30, January 17, 2013

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 17:30, January 17, 2013

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 17:30, January 17, 2013

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com: Created page with " There is a pending petition for cert with SCOTUS with the following issue: [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/ ''Salinas v. Texas''..."

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com: Created page with "