> The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent. I cannot seem to find any supporting text in the SC

> The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent. I cannot seem to find any supporting text in the SCOTUS text that merely being silent waives rights. Quite the contrary, my quote indicates it that as soon as the I would assert my rights, even in the middle of the interrogation, the interrogation would have to halt. (Additionally, the interrogated Thompkins did speak and answer, it was just terce.) >I wish I were making that up. You now have to repeatedly state it. Again, I can find no evidence in the SCOTUS opinion that once I assert my right, I have to repeatedly re-assert it. From your note: > unless tou break your silence to aay that you intend to be silent, yiu will be prosecuted for your silence I find nothing of sort in this case. I can remain truly silent, and my silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Of course I can still be prosecuted with other evidence. Griffin v. California (1965) , Doyle v. Ohio (1976), and Salinas v. Texas (2013) just to name a few. If I missed these, please point me to it so I can correct myself.