tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post4921811194215071612..comments2023-10-09T04:11:47.358-07:00Comments on Not A Potted Plant: Antonin Scalia, Judicial PolicymakerBurt Likkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-15786108774317432432010-02-26T05:17:19.161-08:002010-02-26T05:17:19.161-08:00I honestly have no idea, TL. I've never been ...I honestly have no idea, TL. I've never been in that situation, and a quick Google doesn't yield anything concrete.<br /><br />There do seem to be limitations to what can be inferred from the silence. In particular, it's not possible to convict someone based on their silence. But as I understand it, that particular wording is there to allow the inference from prior silence to mean that a witness on the stand has had sufficient time to make up an answer to the question.Kaz Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272310026172140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-2045134786184180682010-02-25T10:53:43.374-08:002010-02-25T10:53:43.374-08:00Kaz, in the UK, do you have a right to a court-app...Kaz, in the UK, do you have a right to a court-appointed lawyer? Do you know when that right attaches?<br /><br />Dan, you'd think that two decades of <i>Law & Order</i> on TV would have educated the public by now. There is a scene in almost every espisode of <i>Law & Order</i> in which the cops go in to the interview room and say something like, "Timmy, you're in a lot of trouble. We just need to hear your side of the story!" and Timmy then proceeds to tell them his side of the story. Triva question: in which episode did that work out well for Timmy? <i><b>None of them.</b></i>Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-37552420318908048832010-02-25T09:41:22.817-08:002010-02-25T09:41:22.817-08:00It's not so clear cut in the UK. When given a...It's not so clear cut in the UK. When given a caution by the police (which is kind of DEFCON 2 before charging you with something), part of their spiel includes:<br /><br />"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."Kaz Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272310026172140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-16705234333482552272010-02-25T09:27:20.784-08:002010-02-25T09:27:20.784-08:00Two comments.
1) I am shocked (SHOCKED!!!) that ...Two comments.<br /><br />1) I am shocked (SHOCKED!!!) that you are questioning Scalia's <i> bona fides </i> as a strict constructionist. If he ruled on it, it must be in the text of the Constitution somewhere. That's probably what "habeas corpus" means, and you've just been getting it wrong all these years.<br /><br />2) While I applaud the overall sardonic tone of this post (as with most of your posts, which I also applaud), I also should note that this is really good advice, and will try to keep it in mind if I ever end up in the clink.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.com