3 ms·

Kinda sorta, not entirely. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supreme_court_rules_in_miranda.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-

Kinda sorta, not entirely. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supreme_court_rules_in_miranda.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supre... "The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices said turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”"

sliverstorm 14y ago
You're being kinda nit-picky. All the suspect has to say is "I plead the fifth", or something to those lines.
jasonzemos 14y ago
This decision doesn't refute the parent poster's point. The suspect always had the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The decision just affirms that you have to explicitly stop the questioning by speaking your intention of that. The minority felt 2 hours of silence and badgering by the suspect indicates a wish to stop the questioning and invalidate further coercive measures to extract testimony.