The supreme court justices Samuel Alito answered to this case that Mr. Salina didn't have the right to remain silent. Mr. Salina was free to leave, which didn't insert his Miranda rights and he had therefore no right to remain silent. Justices Samuel Alito stated that Mr. Salina´s should have affirmatively invoked his rights, because without Mr. Salina´s having a lawyer or being told the Miranda rights he should have been more affirmative about his invoking. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html)
Salinas v. Texas is demonstrating the Miranda rules in a way where if the rules doesn´t apply the questioned from the beginning the Miranda rights doesn't apply either. This case pointed out that the 5th and 6th amendment rights included in Miranda won´t apply if a person didn´t have the legal rights in the first place. I believe the supreme court decision in Salinas v. Texas was accurate because without being interrogated and in custody there is no legal rights for the officers to give a person their Miranda rights. Mr. Salinas in this case didn't have the right to remain silent, and therefore my opinion is that the prosecutor should have the right to tell the court about Mr. Salinas behavior while he was being questioned. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html) In N.C v. …show more content…
Commonwealth of Kentucky a student told an assistant principle while the sheriff´s deputy working at the school was presence about him giving drug pills to other students. The student later appealed saying that he wasn't told about his Miranda rights, and started to make incriminating statements. The supreme court of Kentucky stated that when the student was interrogated he was also in custody because of the presence of the sheriff´s deputy, meaning that he should have been told about his Miranda rights. The supreme court was also saying that the students age was a significant factor. They said that no one of the age of 17 would reasonable believe he was free to leave, and he also thought the questions were about discipline and not about criminal chargers as well. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2013/04/student_merited_miranda_warnin.html) In N.C v. Commonwealth of Kentucky the supreme court is ruling that the telling of the Miranda rights should apply when a person reasonable believes he/she is not free to leave. In this case the students age was considered while being if he would reasonable think he was free to go from the questioning because he was a minor. In my opinion this case is a proof of special circumstances where the Miranda rule should have been told because the person did not in a reasonable way understand his right to leave. This case also proves the importance of the person questioned that he/she reasonably understands that they have a right to leave. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2013/04/student_merited_miranda_warnin.html) In Missouri v. Seibert, Ms. Seibert was taking into questioning after there had been a fire in her house, and a 18-year old named Donald living with the family died. Ms. Seibert had been present when two of her sons had discussed with two of their friends that they where t set fire to the house to conceal the truth about her son´s death. Ms. Seibert feared charges of neglect. While she was interrogated for about 40 minutes and Ms. Seibert made a confession. After the confession they took a break and after the break
Salinas v. Texas is demonstrating the Miranda rules in a way where if the rules doesn´t apply the questioned from the beginning the Miranda rights doesn't apply either. This case pointed out that the 5th and 6th amendment rights included in Miranda won´t apply if a person didn´t have the legal rights in the first place. I believe the supreme court decision in Salinas v. Texas was accurate because without being interrogated and in custody there is no legal rights for the officers to give a person their Miranda rights. Mr. Salinas in this case didn't have the right to remain silent, and therefore my opinion is that the prosecutor should have the right to tell the court about Mr. Salinas behavior while he was being questioned. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html) In N.C v. …show more content…
Commonwealth of Kentucky a student told an assistant principle while the sheriff´s deputy working at the school was presence about him giving drug pills to other students. The student later appealed saying that he wasn't told about his Miranda rights, and started to make incriminating statements. The supreme court of Kentucky stated that when the student was interrogated he was also in custody because of the presence of the sheriff´s deputy, meaning that he should have been told about his Miranda rights. The supreme court was also saying that the students age was a significant factor. They said that no one of the age of 17 would reasonable believe he was free to leave, and he also thought the questions were about discipline and not about criminal chargers as well. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2013/04/student_merited_miranda_warnin.html) In N.C v. Commonwealth of Kentucky the supreme court is ruling that the telling of the Miranda rights should apply when a person reasonable believes he/she is not free to leave. In this case the students age was considered while being if he would reasonable think he was free to go from the questioning because he was a minor. In my opinion this case is a proof of special circumstances where the Miranda rule should have been told because the person did not in a reasonable way understand his right to leave. This case also proves the importance of the person questioned that he/she reasonably understands that they have a right to leave. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2013/04/student_merited_miranda_warnin.html) In Missouri v. Seibert, Ms. Seibert was taking into questioning after there had been a fire in her house, and a 18-year old named Donald living with the family died. Ms. Seibert had been present when two of her sons had discussed with two of their friends that they where t set fire to the house to conceal the truth about her son´s death. Ms. Seibert feared charges of neglect. While she was interrogated for about 40 minutes and Ms. Seibert made a confession. After the confession they took a break and after the break