Thursday, November 12, 2009
Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences discusses a recent article by Lauren Altdoerffer contasting Miranda with the U.K.'s statutory scheme:
A key difference in the U.K. is that the suspect is advised that his silence can be used at trial if he raises something he would reasonably have been expected to say upon arrest. For example, an arrestee with a real alibi would be expected to say so immediately. A criminal who wants to concoct a false alibi needs to line up people willing to lie for him first. There is a logically valid inference from silence in that situation, and the trier of fact should be allowed to consider it.