Man Convicted of Manslaughter for Not Expressing Concern About Crash Victims

Last summer, the Supreme Court
ruled 5-4 that citizens
don’t have a natural right to remain silent to avoid
self-incrimination before they’re arrested and read their Miranda
rights, unless they invoke such a right. That is to say, if you are
questioned by police and you haven’t been arrested, what you
don’t say can be used against you in a court of law,
unless you have the good sense to invoke your Fifth Amendment right
to not incriminate yourself directly, out loud.

It was a terrible ruling, and we’re
seeing the consequences now in a case in the Bay Area in
California. Richard Tom, speeding and possibly drunk, got into a
car crash that killed a little girl in 2007. He was convicted of
manslaughter, and during the trial, prosecutors used his failure to
ask about the condition of the victims as evidence of his guilt.
This was before he was arrested and read his rights. His conviction
was challenged, but California’s Supreme Court is upholding the
verdict, 4-3, partly on the basis of the Salinas v. Texas
case from last year. As such, because Tom failed to invoke his
Fifth Amendment rights, “The prosecution may … use a defendant’s
prearrest silence in response to an officer’s question as
substantive evidence of guilt, provided the defendant has not
expressly invoked the decision,” the court wrote.

Maybe “Don’t talk to the police” isn’t enough training anymore.
We may have to say “Don’t talk to the police except for invoking
your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself” as the new
libertarian thing.

Read the court ruling here
(pdf).

(Hat tip to Reason contributor Steven
Greenhut)