You Have A Fifth Amendment Right To Remain Silent….After You Speak Up.

A criminal defendant who had been drinking and speeding caused a collision which resulted in one child’s death and serious injuries to another child. During its case in chief, the prosecution gave much emphasis to the defendant’s failure to inquire about the occupants of the other vehicle as evidence that he was driving without due regard for their safety. The California Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, noting that “defendant, after his arrest but before he had received his Miranda warnings, needed to make a timely and unambiguous assertion of the privilege in order to benefit from it.” In his dissent, J. Liu stated: “As anyone who has ever watched a crime drama on television knows, a suspect who is placed under arrest ―has a right to remain silent,‖ and ―any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him.‖ (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612; 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706] (Miranda).) The Miranda warnings, which ―have become part of our national culture‖ (Dickerson v. United States (2000) 530 U.S. 428, 443, [120 S.Ct. 2326, 2336, 147 L.Ed.2d 405, 419]), serve as an essential safeguard to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the context of custodial interrogation. But whether interrogated or not, a suspect in custody has a right under the Fifth Amendment not to incriminate himself. And often the best way not to incriminate oneself is to say nothing.”  (The People v. Tom (Cal Sup.Ct.; August 14, 2014) 59 Cal.4th 1210, [331 P.3d 303, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 148].)