4 ms·

You are not allowed to take the persons silence as a sign of guilt in the US. If you invoke your right there wouldn’t be a transcript.

• n8henry 7y ago
  The US Supreme Court has said that you must invoke your right to remain silent. It doesn't seem constitutional, but it is currently the law. (Salinas v. Texas and People v. Tom)
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • testvox 7y ago
    That's not entirely true. They ruled that silence in a non-custodial interview could be admissable at trial. Silence in custodial interviews is still not admissable and they didn't actually decide the question of whether or not silence can be taken as substantive evidence of guilt.
    • khuey 7y ago
      What is "silence in a non-custodial interview" and how is that different from no interview at all?
      • n8henry 7y ago
        It means remaining silent when you are not under arrest or being detained.
        • testvox 7y ago
          Sadly the court considers detainment to be non-custodial and rarely do they venture to better define when a detainment turns into an arrest.
• bnegreve 7y ago
  GP's point is that the transcript did help. > The shock and surprise of the accused was palpable from the transcript and believeable.
  • cloverich 7y ago
    They are refuting the prior point -- that if the accused had been silent (when asked questions in the transcript) it would have looked like they were guilty. So this point is -- in U.S. it wouldn't, because they wouldn't even be discussing the transcript. (IANAL and have no idea of the accuracy, just clarifying the argument).