aaaaa
Member
It really is not simply evaluating the evidence, which can be murky itself, but it is also showmanship and dealing with people all of whom have biases. It can be a crapshoot! Moreso in some jurisdictions than others.
Last edited:
Evidence against me
- Thread starter Scrapiron45
- Start date
One should read the analyses of the Bernhard Goetz trial. His ammo and 'tactical' holster were brought up. The jurors said so. While after discussion they discounted that in the SD part of the trial, they said it influenced them on the gun possession trial. It also influenced the judge in that trial, according to the judge.
So here's clear example. If I had a lawyer that was not cognizant of clear past examples and jury research on these issues, I might rethink my representation.
redcon1
member
Even things said prior to having been mirandized though? That seems unconstitutional but I'm no lawyer so...
The Miranda and Escobedo warnings were nothing new. Neither was Ron White's observation that "I had the right to remain silent, but I did not have the ability!" Any statement I make to anyone, if others are aware, has the potential to be be used as evidence against me in the event of court proceedings. If that causes me to refrain from launching into hate speech or demeaning others for things they cannot change, my words will be much less likely to be used against me. Custodial interrogations require the warnings, but that doesn't mean I could speak freely without consequence prior to the warnings.
RickD427
Member
Yes, things that you say prior to receiving the Miranda admonishment may be used against you.
Additionally, your silence in response to pre-Miranda questions can also be used against you.
Please refer to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Salinas v Texas (2013)
redcon1
member
Is there a limit to how far back they can search? Can comments made in 2020 be used to prove the state of mind of an individual 2-3 years later at the time of an alleged crime for example?
Last edited:
It is ironic indeed that Salinas was at the police headquarters answering questions about a murder when he refused to answer a question. The appeals court held that remaining silent isn't enough to invoke the 5th amendment privilege. Apparently in Texas, the fifth amendment doesn't apply unless the magic incantation is uttered. It was not only his silence, however, but his demeanor and act of biting his lip and looking at the ground that was noted at trial.
Anchorite
Member
RickD427
Member
It's not just about Texas, Salinas was a U.S. Supreme Court case. The principle applies throughout the United States. The rule is pretty clear that the "Right not to be a witness against oneself in a criminal matter" must be affirmatively exercised. It's also important that Fifth Amendment does not provide a global "Right to be Silent" in all matters. The right is predicated on the existence of a "Criminal Matter." If there is no "Criminal Matter", there is no right to silence.
Salinas is a grim reminder that not only words but actions can be held against us. And that maybe freedom isn't what it once was, or what we were taught that it was, all those years ago.
Yes.
RickD427
Member
There no fixed time limit similar to a "Statute of Limitations." The challenge for the party trying to admit such evidence is in showing that it is relevant to a matter currently being tried.
redcon1
member
I was specifically remembering the Kyle Rittenhouse case where the Judge refused to allow a certain video into evidence where Kyle purportedly stated that he wished he had his buddies AR so he could shoot at looters he was watching on TV or something to that effect. The judge seemed to think it wasn't relevant to his state of mind on the night in question and ruled it inadmissible. Similarly, he thoroughly chastised the prosecutor for daring to mention Kyle's choice to exercise his 5th amendment rights as I recall. I'm sure it's a crap shoot and a different judge might have allowed the video however.
Regardless though, it seems like it would be a challenge for a prosecutor to prove that an individual's statements made on an internet forum years ago are relevant to a questionable SD shooting that occurred recently unless the statements were very very damning and specific to the shooting. And if that's the case, perhaps the statements should be admitted. Maybe it was murder.
I value my RKBA but I value my right to speak freely even more. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd definitely go with the right to speak freely. I'm not going to limit my own free expression out of fear that it might come back to bite me in the ass some day in a SD shooting trial. I have zero intention of shooting someone and especially in a questionable manner and; although, I'm a giant ***** who drinks too much coffee and runs his mouth, I'm no murderer and I'm confident that I will never find myself on trial for murder so I'm going to keep saying how I really feel (within the agreed upon TOS of course). And I know I've made many enemies doing just that but they want to use my words against me, they'll have to do it outside a court of law. Like I said, too much coffee.
Regardless though, it seems like it would be a challenge for a prosecutor to prove that an individual's statements made on an internet forum years ago are relevant to a questionable SD shooting that occurred recently unless the statements were very very damning and specific to the shooting. And if that's the case, perhaps the statements should be admitted. Maybe it was murder.
I value my RKBA but I value my right to speak freely even more. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd definitely go with the right to speak freely. I'm not going to limit my own free expression out of fear that it might come back to bite me in the ass some day in a SD shooting trial. I have zero intention of shooting someone and especially in a questionable manner and; although, I'm a giant ***** who drinks too much coffee and runs his mouth, I'm no murderer and I'm confident that I will never find myself on trial for murder so I'm going to keep saying how I really feel (within the agreed upon TOS of course). And I know I've made many enemies doing just that but they want to use my words against me, they'll have to do it outside a court of law. Like I said, too much coffee.
