Articles Tagged with Right to Remain Silent

No “substantial penalties” can be imposed as a result of exercising their Fifth Amendment Rights

Most people know they have a Fifth Amendment right not to be forced to incriminate oneself. This right encompasses not only the right not to speak about something that might lead you to actually admit to wrongdoing, but also the right to not have the court infer that your silence is itself an admission of guilt.

No substantial penalties can be imposed as a result of exercising your Fifth Amendment right. Moreover, if a defendant chooses to remain silent during sentencing, his silence is not to be taken as either an admission or a lack of contrition. However, if a defendant chooses to express remorse during sentencing, his statement can be used by the sentencing judge as a mitigating factor–a reason to be more lenient.

In an appellate case heard earlier this year, the rule against self-incrimination was applied to the issue of how a defendant’s silence can affect sentencing. In that case, the defendant (a woman) was on trial for major felony charges and was convicted.

Before sentencing, the trial judge said he would not put her on probation because the probation officer had reported she would not make statements about her offense during the investigation. Therefore, the probation officer had concluded she would not be able to participate in any counseling or treatment diversion program which required frank communication.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court had improperly sentenced her to a two-year prison term instead of placing her on probation or suspending the sentence. In her view, the prison term violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because it punished her refusing to talk about the details of her case with a probation officer.

The appellate court explained that in this case the defendant was neither entitled to probation nor to have her sentence suspended. Probation was a sentencing alternative, rather than a right. These were matters over which the trial court had discretion. Appellate courts give deference to the trial judge’s opinion about what seems necessary to rehabilitate a defendant.

The appellate court reasoned that a sentencing court was not prevented from considering a defendant’s silence regarding the offense in determining whether he or she could be rehabilitated through probation. In this case, the trial court had grounded its assessment in the probation officer’s report as to her unwillingness to talk about the offense even for purposes of rehabilitation.

The appellate court found that the sentence imposed was among those available by statute and therefore could not be considered a “substantial penalty” for silence or exercise of a Fifth Amendment right. The defendant in the instant case had relied on a Fifth Amendment case. In that case, a probationer was not required to answer certain polygraph questions because the court ruled he was entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment with respect to questions that could implicate him in future criminal matters.

The court reasoned that even a probationer would be required to answer questions relating to a past offense for which he was given probation. The defendant had refused to answer questions and had not intimated they might incriminate her in future criminal proceedings.

Additional Resources

Arizona Sentencing Chart
Maricopa County Criminal Procedures

Continue reading

45 years after Miranda v. Arizona – Its impact on the US Criminal Justice System
Over the last 45 years, legal controversies and challenges have continued to plague the “Miranda Rights”. Yet still it is recognized by all states in country. Following an arrest, the police must inform or warn a person of their “right to remain silent” and their right to defense counsel.

In Arizona the right to remain silent is afforded by both the United States Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. The right to remain silent is a privilege, because it enables a person to a avoid self-incrimination.
Under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution a person shall not be compelled to be witness against themselves in their criminal case. When you hear someone say they are “pleading the 5th”, this is usually what they are referring to.

Article 2, Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution states that no person shall be compelled to testify or provide testimony, or statements against their own defense.
The right to avoid self-incrimination existed long before the landmark case. But since the US Supreme Court ruling in favor or Ernesto Miranda, in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 they have been referred to as “Miranda Rights or “Miranda Warning”. In this case, the defendant Ernesto Miranda made a confession, which led to a conviction based on his statements. Ernesto Miranda appealed the decision and prevailed in the US Supreme Court. His argument was that he had not been made aware of his right to remain silent during interrogation, or criminal defense attorney.

If a person is arrested for a DUI or crime, it is important that they invoke their rights. After an arrest and before any interrogation the police must read a suspect their Miranda Rights. Invoking one’s right to remain silent helps avoiding self-incriminating statements that can later be used against them.
To invoke the right to remain silent one must verbally or in writing put police on notice that they wish to do so. If a person simply remains silent, they will be perceived by police as being uncooperative. It’s also important for a suspect to answer routine questions regarding identity and residency as well as the booking process.

Criminal Rights Attorney Chandler AZ

If you have been arrested, be sure you invoke your right to remain silent regarding the charges, until your defense attorney can be present, or has given you other instructions. If your rights have been violated, it may lead to dismissal of charges, other challenges or defenses in your case. You should always consult a criminal defense attorney if you face active charges to discuss your matter, and options for defense.

Additional Resource Links:

Arizona State Legislature – AZ Constitution

Miranda Rights Q. and A.

Justia Law Summary: Miranda v. Arizona 1966

Continue reading

Contact Information