You're not completely correct. Supreme Court has said the act of remaining silent in context can be used against you in a court of law. So context dependent, you do have to speak to use your right to remain silent. Salinas vs. Texas The prosecutor was allowed to use the defense silence as evidence during the trial.
In a case where a man was not under arrest, not detained and was admittedly giving a voluntary statement to the police. So, Yes, context is extremely important. In that case, the Supreme Court also said that there are exceptions to the rule they were following.
That was one of the dumbest opinions I ever read. I think it was Scalia who claimed that someone while remaining silent could try to think up an alibi therefore you must assert that you are remaining silent. I've been hoping to run into one of the dissenters just to ask what the hell happened. How can a right exist only when you speak it into being?
@@NuncNuncNuncNunc That is completely asinine. What's to stop someone from saying they plead the fifth and "making up an alibi" afterwards? Not that "making up an alibi" is any kind of justification for taking away someone's rights. The idea of invalidating someone's rights just because they could be thinking of a lie is infuriating.
@@stevelehto There was also a case in California (People vs. Tom) where the California Supreme Court ruled that defendant's silence could be used against him. It was post arrest pre Miranda. Sort of on the flip side you'll recall was the Kyle Rittenhouse case where the first thing the prosecutor brought up when Rittenhouse took the stand was the fact that he had remained silent. Then the judge chewed his butt.
No. The REAL question, is: With the burden of defense resting solely on the accused, does he even win...? Even with being exonerated, the state wins...How much were his legal expenses, AND, why isn't the state NOT automatically liable for the cost...?
Thankfully, Illinois recently passed a law, unless it was overturned, that allows a person to sue arresting police officers, prosecutors and even judges who abuse the law against them. So I suspect this isn't over yet.
The judicial victim had his life wrecked, probably lost his job and everything he owns. The prosecutor and judge should have all of their assets transferred to their victim and be disbarred. That would send a very clear message.
They did a pre sentence investigation that was appproved but denied by the judge.The day of sentencing the defendants phone rang his supervisor was sending him to a job location on speaker phone ask the judge to release me I’m the person this is about!
FYI, if ended up serving time, the prosecutor and the judge did get away with it. This shows one of the HUGE flaws in the American Legal system where government officials can violates someone rights and are not accountable for their actions, and the person whose life they destroyed is not ever made whole again.
@@frankney8284 part of the reason why I think there may be a second civil war at least possibly within our lifetime because eventually a group of people are going to get fed up with it and spark will ignite a fire and then spread across the country
I believe they should face criminal penalties and if sued they should be held individually responsible. And when they're prosecuted they should be required to use an overworked public defender.
The prosecutor and judge should be disbarred and removed from office. Also, the government getting an appeal against itself is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I mean it's actually double jeopardy if you think about it.
@proprietarycurez8463 This is why the motto of the United States of America is 'In God we trust,' because the judicial system cannot be trusted. Any extra expense this motorcyclist may have incurred by taking the case to superior courts should be paid for by the prosecution and the Judge.
They assume you’re guilty anyway. Yet another reason we have a second amendment. If I’m presumed guilty and I’m going to be punished, I might as well be guilty and take a tyrant or two with me.
You do know that that's the way our "justice" system works. It's not innocent until proven guilty, as so many naïvely believe. It's guilty until proven innocent. That's why as soon as you're accused of a crime you're arrested and thrown in jail, before anything has been proven.
@@MrTrailerman2 I couldn’t agree more but the problem here is that the courts are in collusion with the cops. One would think this case is a happy one since they came to the right conclusion. Wrong. It’s just one of a long train of abuses and usurpations. That guys “justice” was too little and far too late to actually be justice. Furthermore, suppose they don’t make that blatantly obvious mistake again; there are plenty more blatantly obvious mistakes that they’ll happily make. Just look at the gun laws Oregon has passed and continues to pass after Bruen.
We have investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrong doing and have initiated plans to harass and arrest the compliant for their audacity in trying to make us accountable for our illegal and unconstitutional actions.
Given that the prosecutor BEGAN the trial by deliberately violating the rights of the man on trial, can the prosecutor be charged with anything? Malicious prosecution? An example needs to be made.
I paused the video and am staring at Steve in disbelief that ANY judge would construe remaining silent as an admission of any type of guilt. This judge should be sentenced to re - take 7th through 9th grade Civics Classes
Makes you wonder if someone bribed the proctor to allow someone else to take their bar exam. For that matter it's enough to make you wonder if they actually earned their law degree the old fashioned way.
@@mikeybhoutex There is nothing in this particular story to make us believe that this judge wasn't though. And if nothing else the prosecutor certainly was!
What's really scary is the cop, the judge AND all of the jury didn't question his right to remain silent. Civil rights should be a mandatory class in middle/high school.
It used to be part of the curriculum. In fact, you needed 2 years of American History to get into college. Makes me wonder what kids are getting taught in school these days.
@@edwood8698Back then, nobody had tiny keyboards and autocorrect that would stop working without warning, or change good words to bad words for no reason.
Comply, you’re guilty. Don’t comply, you’re guilty at least of resisting arrest. Yeah, that makes no sense. How that makes sense in the eyes of people who have studied the law and passed the bar is beyond me.
egos sometimes are a problem with people who are given some authority over the poor saps minding their own business. they have to assert their authority for some kind of ego boost, maybe a check mark on their resume whatever,
It doesn't matter, Steve, that you never said that. Other YT lawyer programs have suggested that one should explicitly inform the officers that they are invoking their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. They say to ask for a lawyer and then shut up. They aren't saying that this is necessary in order to exercise the right to remain silent, but rather it strengthens any potential claims one might bring against them for violating constitutional rights. It _might_ help prove that the officials' conduct rose above a simple desire to get a confession by crossing the line into unconstitutional actions. _Edit to add:_ By "doesn't matter_ I mean that to some viewers, internet lawyers are interchangeable.
Oh it makes perfect sense, if your primary motivation is padding your conviction statistics or meeting a quota. Your mistake is thinking they actually give a damn about The People's Rights
He could have been compliant with the instruction to not make a scene, but still verbally asserted his innocence. _Not doing this doesn't prove guilt,_ but it's a third alternative to the Hobson's Choice mentioned above.
If he actually had to serve time, he would certainly be well justified in filing a civil lawsuit against the jurisdiction that convicted him on a false premise.
@@joshualandry3160 It depends on how much money you have. Plenty of poor defendants languish in pre-trial detention for years. He was found guilty. He was probably in jail during the appeal process.
Prosecutors are second in terms of immunity from our laws. Judges have absolute and are obviously first. It's such a sad system where the people in charge must be basically totally immune from it.
@@hashbrown4781 They recently granted QI to a civil engineer for impersonating a police officer. Can't remember name and location but it's Google-able.
@Winston S. Qualified Immunity is lower, but much worse. In every way, it is the same as "ignorance of the law IS the excuse." Best to have a bunch of undertrained thugs and give them qualified immunity rather than training them properly and leaving them open to liability.
@@clintmatthews3500 It should vary... Kind of like how many licks does it take to get to the Footsie Roll center of a Footsie Pop? Not the same each time. On a serious note, think about human natute, and ask yourself how such a rule would change the appellate process. Appeals judges like a certain judge? They might find an excuse not to overturn a case, just to save that judge's career. We have a system in most state courts. If a judge is making bad decisions, vote him or her out. It's a hallmark of evil characters in fiction and real life to impose harsh punishments for honest mistakes. That leads to cover-ups. We don't want to be the evil characters.
With police, prosecutors and too many courts, it is damned if you don’t, damned if you do. Speed, suspicious, drive the speed limit, suspicious. Wear sunglasses, suspicious, don’t wear sunglasses, suspicious. Walk down the street with ear buds, suspicious, walking without ear buds, suspicious….
I sincerely hope that innocent man can sue over that miscarriage of justice and wins a lot of money, as well as ensuring the idiots involved never work in law again.
Well, the cop is now dead, the judge and prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity; they can do whatever, obviously and unbelievably wrong, and nothing can make them accountable. Absolute immunity is qualified immunitys big brother, who takes steroids and bullies even his girlfriend. He can sue and even win, city will pay, but thats about all she wrote, the end.
I find it unconscionable that a lawyer can be that oblivious to the constitution and it's amendments. Or even worse, to blatantly ignore it. That lawyer and judge deserve to be disbarred for gross misconduct. And it they honestly thought they were right, they need to be disbarred for being ignorant.
They cannot be assumed to be ignorant of the Constitution and its Amendments - they are admitted members of the Bar Association after all, so they don't get that option as an excuse. This is willful disregard of said documents. I agree that they should be disbarred. A law should also be enacted for future cases of willful disregard that (now former) attorneys/judges spend two says in prison (or jail, as the case may be) for every one day a wrongly convicted defendant did. That would put a stop to this behavior, as their own asses would be on the line (hopefully not in the literal sense).
@@bms9144 I may be in the minority but I think your proposal is going too soft on lawyers & judges. I would say that any lawyer or judge that grossly & willfully disregards rights of a citizen that results in ANY jail time [or similar] should be AT LEAST a 2nd degree felony that is upgradeable to a 1st degree felony depending on the circumstances and what the citizen was found guilty of.
The prosecutor attempted this during the rittenhouse case and almost caused a mistrial. The judge chewed him out for not recognizing a dependents inherent right to remain silent and it not be used against him in court.
Kyle's lawyers did not want a mistrial because they knew he would be Acquitted, unless it was a mistrial with prejudice which means Kyle could not be charged again. That DA should have been disbarred.
It's so unbelievable that an experienced prosecutor would make this mistake that the most likely explanation is that he was trying for a mistrial because they were losing so badly.
Authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Teach your families, friends and neighbors because the gov has been brainwashing us all forever. Most are still watching and believing gov/ corp media propaganda.
The problem is that the jury is only allowed to use the law that the judge gives them. The sole role of the jury is to weigh the evidence and see if the prosecution/plaintiff has made its case. If they did decide to vote not guilty, then this wouldn't have gotten to the appellate court and ultimately the highest court in the state. Now, there is precedence that other attorneys can use if the situation happens again. If juries nullify the charges, then it's whack-a-mole where every jury has to nullify it or people wind up going to prison over blatantly unconstitutional things. It sucks for those that are wrongfully convicted and have to hope that it gets fixed on appeal, but there isn't really a better way of addressing these things.
The rational people realize that the judge, clerk, bailiffs, court recorder, prosecutors, defence attorneys, paralegals, police officers, forensic specialists, expert witnesses and pretty much everyone else is paid to be there but the jurors (who are supposed to be an important, integral part of the process) are paid diddly squat and even lose money for their attendance. Civic duty be damned...it doesn't pay for the groceries or mortgage.
There needs to be serious consequences for government officials that so blatantly violate the rights of the people. Qualified immunity has got to go. The judge and prosecutor should be disbarred, and probably lose their homes if not go to prison.
Losing their homes could unjustly penalize innocent family members. Better to stick to other consequences for their blatant violations. "Unqualified immunity" might be a more accurate term.
@@HippieLongHaired When I say they should lose their homes its because they need to liquidate all their assets to pay out a large judgement to the citizen they wronged.
If the evidence was really “overwhelming”, as the prosecutor claims, then there would have been no reason to raise the silence issue. This appears to be gross misconduct by the prosecutor and the judge.
the appeals court would have upheld if his lawyer didn't object at the right time as a waived right and harmless error some states now require affirmative defense, meaning you have to speak to be found not guilty judge and prosecutor are CO-WORKERS
I have seen SO MANY abuses of "Justice" that I believe prosecutors and judges are only meant to give a forward facing legal/judicial facade to whatever powers are working behind the Capitalist machine...if I was in China, I can EASILY presume/argue the same, but with more Communist looking facades. The idea that Capitalism has ANY ethics or morals baked into it is a fools presumption. 97% conviction rates, nothing works this well...EVER. The USA is a billboard advertising green acres with a COP behind it doing the "dirty work". AND YOU PAY THEM SO WELL...and qualified immunity? Civil forfeiture? Interesting.
@@madman4043 an example of affirmative defense. in many states, it is a defense to statutory rape if you reasonably thought the minor was over 18. i.e. you met at a bar and have to be 18 to get into the bar. most of those states require you to get on the stand to use that defense. meaning the state doesn't have to prove it isn't a defense, you have to affirm the defense Tennessee doesn't, the state has to prove you didn't meet at a bar after a guy slept with a minor he met at a bar, she got in cause her parents own the bar and she was hooking up with patrons. TN has to prove you knew the minor was underage or that you acted recklessly toward their age. she never said she was 18 tho, that is actually called rope in 26 states. it's called rope by deception. it's even the dictionary and has been illegal in TN for 20 years. 1 guy got 30 years for pretending to be a woman's fiancee. she said is this cris, he said yes. case was called raymond "fantasy man" mitchell he called women late at night and told them to get naked and unlock the door and lay on a bed with a blindfold. the yes answer got him 30 years.
@@madman4043 In most states, failing to lodge an objection at trial waives the issue on appeal, even if there was a genuine reversible error. In this case, the attorneys DID object, and were overruled, which preserves the issue for appeal; the defense did exactly the right thing here. Had they failed to do so, they might have not been able to appeal the decision even though the court should in fact have declared a mistrial. That's not ALWAYS true: There are SOME issues that can be raised for the first time on appeal even if not raised at trial. But by and large, you need to preserve an error on the record for the appellate court to review it and say "Yep, that was a mistake that we need to fix." It's just how appeals work.
The prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case tried to use Rittenhouse's 5th amendment against him in the trial, and the judge ripped the prosecutor a new one.
@@daddydo17he didn't break ANY laws and protected himself from multiple violent convicted criminals and one was a violent pedophile who should have been ended long before
@@daddydo17 Did you not watch the trial and see all the video evidence that proved he clearly acted in self defense? Get a grip on reality there buttercup !!!
I can't believe what I'm hearing! That prosecutor and especially the judge should be censured at the very least! This should be a permanent stain on their careers.
There should be a rule where all those involved in law who attempt to gain a conviction by pulling stupid and or outrageous things have to serve the sentence of their victim. If this rule was in place there’d be quite a few prosecutors judges and police officers behind bars and all those who’d act like gods other wise would find another profession.
Sadly, even if the High Court of Illinois ruled in the Defendent's favor, he lost 2 years of his life in prison, for exercising his constitutional rights. The prosecutor & lower court still screwed over the defendent. Very sad. :(
He should have been released after the Appeals Court decided. But you're very right. None of this would repay him for the time he spent behind bars or the cost of his legal team.
Illinois is full blown leftist commie totalitarian tyrantville anymore....they do this because they can and the real criminals in Chigongo are DANGEROUS and they have to take down non dangerous prey animals like this poor bastard. I hope he can sue and get millions.
i wouldn't say sad i'd say outrageous. where is the jail time for these people depriving citizens of their rights? is that not a crime anymore? no wonder it goes on.
Any judge that doesn't immediately declare a mistrial when this is even suggested is not fit for the office. End of discussion. Any lawyer who even suggests it is not fit for the job. End of discussion.
you cannot enforce laws against theor who make and enforce laws, they wont punish themselves or others in government, in other words you cannot self check they will protect teh state over us. when there is no conflict they will rule accordingly, but when it comes to accountablity they will protect the state over anything else.
Exactly. At a minimum, a prosecutor must be admonished, and a jury advised, if there is any attempt to imply silence or refusal to testify against yourself it is NOT an indicator of guilt. It is a Constitutional right.
Underrated comment. I think you are onto something. New judges and prosecutors in the current educational system are being taught this. That is probably how this got so far.
Since the prosecutor started his case using this absurd legal notion, and the judge NEVER stopped him, it seems most likely to me that this judge is ignorant of the law and (most likely) the prosecutor knew he could present this argument and manipulate the judge into accepting it.
Not ignorant. Just on a power trip. I think the call on the supreme court sending a message is right: they're saying "Anybody making this call again, expect action from us to have the bar association remove your right to practice law".
Massive corruption. Lots of people power tripping as well. If you think about it there's multiple years of jail time for what is a minor traffic violation elsewhere in the country... Placed in a kangaroo court... With the expectation that you will either give them a bunch of money or you go to jail. And if they send you to jail they profit off of that too so it doesn't matter either way. And if you don't believe any of that you can actually look it up yourself.
I remember Thomas Binger (Rittenhouse trial) flirting with the “silence implies guilt” issue. The judge excused the jury before hammering and admonishing that little toadstool. It’s astonishing a supposedly competent attorney would even try to circumvent the 5th Amendment. To say “anything you say can and will be used against you” combined with “also anything you don’t say” is evil and tyrannical.
That was hilarious as Judge Schroeder cut little Bingie deep, wide and continuous for impugning Rittenhouse's right to remain silent when questioned by the "authorities".
@@Chisos1 He chided Binger outside the presence of the jury and then took no material adverse action against him or the prosecution's case. Binger is probably used to doing that in other cases but Schroeder didn't want him doing it in front of the cameras, so Schroeder decided to be performative for the camera so nobody would notice he did nothing of substance to punish Binger.
I saw a video probably a year ago where a woman was stopped for a traffic violation and she wouldn’t answer the questions the officer asked her. He wanted to know where she was going and where she came from. He asked a few other stupid questions and she refused to answer by being silent. He made her get out of the car and handcuffed her and arrested her. Now this is truly as stupid as it could possibly get when it comes to a dumb cop: “He said to her” “you have the right to remain silent“. This is dumber than dumb and on top of everything else she was an attorney and she worked for the states prosecutors office. Eventually a butt whooping ensued. The Pennsylvania State police told me I couldn’t talk to them. They sent me a citation for disorderly conduct and fighting with first responders. They couldn’t shut me up. Less then six minutes to whoop them in court pro se.
You have the option to cooperate with police and if you answer their questions they might be more lenient with you. Or they could just be looking for more evidence of guilt and will use anything you say against you. It's a risk you take talking to the police. Obviously if you don't mind a little inconvenience and want protect yourself don't give the police any information. Overall you might get booked on some bs charge and eventually released but cooperating with police could lead to much larger and more serious charges. You have no idea what they're looking for so it's generally in your best interest to not cooperate until you have a lawyer there to mediate. If you cooperate without a third party there the police could testify you said something different.
@@supernova743 this is why everyone should have a dash cam. Hell I'd say that a working dashcam should be a more important requirement for new cars than a freaking vapour capture system and tpms. I recently watched a video that had body cam footage on it, asking if the suspect had taken a "shooting pose," when he was shirtless, hands up and not moving. But 3 seconds before that suspect came into view as the cop walked through the open door, a different cop yelled "shots fired," very clearly. There were no shots of coarse.
He accomplished his goal. They don't care if she get's prosecuted or not they want to make it painful to punish her for making their job more difficult. There is no recourse, they give you a questionable ticket, get your car towed and impounded. You're out a $1000, they go home knowing they won't get punished because somehow this is their job. Courts get fees. government get's fee's and fines, you get to be late to work.
The fact this even happened at all is why I have no faith in the justice system. Back in college I was pulled over while driving hours from home on a back road I didn’t know the speed limit of. I was going a little slower than what the speed limit ended up being and I was pulled over and questioned if I had been drinking. I was near a college at the time so I can understand the need to screen, but he would not allow me to take a field sobriety test and breathalyzer. He demanded I get a blood test. I said “I am not refusing but I would like another officer to witness this.” He then let me go. I later found out had I said I refused, I would have been arrested despite being completely sober as I’ve always been.
Steve described this case as bizarre only because he starts from a premise that most police, prosecutors and judges aren't corrupt. If only that were actually true.
Steve, they don't "miss" obvious things, they know and don't care, they are ruthless and want a conviction no matter what. Otherwise they wouldn't arrest people for one thing then drop that and change the charge hoping something else will stick.
The majority of the commenters believe it was a mistake. We're so naive. Prosecutors are in the business of incarcerating people not seeking justice as some would believe.
The fact that any judge went yea that makes sense is insane. I remember watching the Kyle Rittenhouse case and when the prosecutor began to comment on his silence the judge ripped him a new one
The prosecutor and the judge in the trial court need to be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, the fact that they tried this and were only put in check by the appellate court shows that they are completely unqualified to serve in ANY level of the justice system ANYWHERE
Don’t forget that in today’s society most people think you’re guilty simply for being charged with something. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard say well he’s obviously guilty or he wouldn’t be on trial 🤦🏻♂️
It was the jury that ultimately convicted the person. This is what concerns me the most. The jury is the last line of defense for the innocent. If they side with government, then all hope is lost. I remember Steve said in one episode that jury tend to believe the police. This case proves that point.
@@frankney8284 I back the blue I'll confirm the truth in that but I like hearing all the evidence being laid out before I make a decision and I'll call out if an officer is being corrupt bullshit is bullshit
Unfortunately, juries are made up of every day people, and generally speaking, they are not very astute when it comes to the law and constitutional rights. And lawyers from both sides play on that ignorance, but it's more egregious when the prosecution preys on that ignorance. Juries are fed which ever sides is doing the presentation or arguments which is/can be quite persuasive
how about Salinas v. Texas (2013) and People v. Tom (2014)? both held that remaining silent could be used as evidence, and that is was necessary to assert the right to silence.
@satoau1 both of these cases the defendant, spoke to the police prior. You don't have to invoke your right to be silent, but once you do you can't selectively pick what questions you want to answer.
@@giantdad1661 not true. "Two recent court cases illustrate situations when a person’s silence could be used against him or her, without violating the Fifth Amendment or Miranda. Both involve failure by the defendant to assert the right to silence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. __ (2013), dealt with a situation in which the defendant spoke to the police voluntarily during a murder investigation, meaning that he was not under arrest when the purportedly incriminating event occurred. When the police officer asked the defendant about his possible involvement in the murder, the officer testified, the defendant became very quiet, and his entire demeanor changed. Police offered the defendant’s silence and behavioral change as incriminating evidence. The court held that police did not violate the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination, in part because the defendant did not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. The California Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in a recent decision, People v. Tom, No. S202107 (Cal., Aug. 14, 2014), which involved evidence of literal silence after an alleged drunk-driving accident-specifically, that the defendant “expressed no concern about the well-being of the other people involved in the collision.” Since this lack of concern occurred after the defendant’s arrest but before he received Miranda warnings, and because he did not expressly assert his right to silence, the court held that his rights were not violated."
@@stevenwoodward5923 That seems to be the norm. Corrupt local judges for revenue. 15k to fight it with an appeal. Our justice system is worthless so the way to the Supreme Court.
Thats how you get charged with contempt of court and forced to hang out in a jail cell til you agree to stop disruptin the trial And yes, that does happen
Jury nullification. If you know the constitution says right to remain silent and the circus continues you don't convict. or you bring up you cannot continue with this trial and request they assign you to a different one since you can't ignore the defendant's rights.
the prosecutor, judge and anyone involved in saying "silence = guilt" should either be removed from their job or have all their cases highly scrutinized for being so insane.
The prosecutor who claimed silence and compliance were proof of guilt, and the judge who agreed with him, should be on trial themselves and should definitely be disbarred.
I know Steve said it twice in the video and went on at length musing over it, but it cannot be said enough, that the state told that he could be silent and that could not be used against him, then they used it against him. If the defense attorney really wanted to push it, I wonder if they could sue the state for deprivation of rights under the colour of law for this stunt? Because the prosecutor made a bogus claim about his right to silence not just being invalid, but evidence of guilt, and the judge supported it, both should have knowing they were wrong. I also have to wonder if this judge and prosecutor have any type of relationship outside of the court room, or if there's a suspicious trend of successful prosecutions when these two are in the same court room.
Yeah I'm in Illinois. Wen I was a kid in trouble years ago my lawyer objected to a hearsay witness. The judge said. "The law is what I say it is in my courtroom" I do believe that's how court is here. They can do whatever they want to whoever they want and if you get in trouble you'd better have fat wallet.
That DA should be removed from office. If they argue that in court they either don't understand the law or they choose to ignore it in order to get a win. A DA's job shouldn't be to get wins in court it should be to make sure that the law is upheld regardless of a guilty or non guilty ruling.
The judge, and any other judge who so egregiously violates an enumerated right, should be censured, sued and fired. Violating a civil right in the conduct of your official federal duty is a felony. The prosecuting attorney and his entire team should also be charged.
The fact that these things take so long to address that they’re fundamentally moot by the time the ruling comes down indicates that there need to be steep criminal penalties for prosecutors and judges that blatantly violate the constitution in this manner.
That is one of the problems with the court system. They will correct lower court mistakes, but refuse to do any policing of the system itself to educate or eliminate incompetent judges. It is a rarity for anyone to take any kind of action against a sitting judge.
Neither a judge nor prosecutor should be given the benefit of the doubt for this type of misconduct. It should be a crime. I'm tired of these people being able to trample on people's rights and get away with it.
In cases like this where someone goes to prison due to people doing whatever they want it seems that those people should face some sort of consequences.
Judge was asleep in law school when they discussed that. I can just imagine the defense attorney’s blood pressure when the judge let that in. Mistrial !
It'll never ok as long as the tyrants who'd be tarred and feathered are still in charge. So you have to get them all at the same time... /I didn't say that, you can't prove it, tyrants! :p
It's happening all over the country. Rabbid prosecutgers going wild with cases that are minor and in the next breath whimpering undwer the table letting 12 times offenders free. To say we the public are sick of it is a understgatement.
What is even more amazing than the fact that the prosecutor used that argument (they are supposed to be for justice, but we know how they roll) is the fact that they, once they got the results from the appellate court, decided to continue fighting. If he was in jail, nothing will give him back the time, and remove the trauma and the possible destruction of his family. Even a suspended sentence is a nightmare for the innocent. Finally, 4 years with a crime attached to his name could mean he lost the window of opportunity to improve his life. Even so, removing the mark can be the difference between getting or not getting a good job, and the possibility of negotiating a rise.
Come now. Steve! It's not so surprising that a prosecutor thinks he could get away with something illegal in the courtroom. Often the administrators of the court are buddy buddies with their ex colleagues or ex colleagues firm or ex colleagues mentees etc. In the end it doesn't hurt his career, he gets a win, the government can't be held at fault, and the only one who loses is the citizen. My father was an esteemed president of a bank and his life was destroyed in a trial court in El Paso, Texas and it absolutely wrecked his life and impoverished our family. He never recovered. The justice system is a nightmare - he has already lost one way or another by the time an upstanding citizen enters a courtroom. So again, it's not at all surprising when I see dastardly deeds done by the friends of the court, the prosecutors or law enforcement.
By the time someone becomes a judge they've repeatedly been taught better. The original trial court judge thereby committed malice. He should be removed and disbarred.
Wow that’s absolutely insane. There’s only three possible scenarios of the reasons why the prosecutor or judge would do this, out of jest or a joke(misconduct), ignorance(unqualified), or malice(criminal) and in all three scenarios there is no way in these people keeping their positions or jobs.
Another one is where a lady voluntarily goes into the police station, gets tired of the questions and says she wants an attorney. They arrest her saying she was free to leave the whole time but didn't so they kept on asking.
Because cops enforce feelings, prosecutors bring cases to fluff up their conviction rate for re-election, and judges can do whatever the heck they want until they REALLY go over the line.
The kyle rittenhouse trial, the Honorable Judge Schroder laid into the prosecutor, Thomas Binger, for making a comment concerning the defendants silence in front of the jury. "I was astonished, when you began the examination by commenting on the defendants post arrest silence. Thats been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years, I have no idea why you would do something like that!"
Imagine that original judge passing down his verdict. "There may not be a lot of evidence or witnesses, but this suspect's silence says more than any words ever could"
I was told by a judge in my area that "His courtroom was not the place to argue the constitutionality of a law". That is the first line of defense in a legal issue so why wouldn't arguing the constitutionality of a law be permitted? Could it be that the lower courts do not want to set precedent for defense against certain laws knowing that the majority of people will not be able to afford an appeal? They want those convictions at any cost even if they get appealed. The court costs and fines have been paid and the sentence executed so why should they bother? That is their paychecks.
You're not completely correct. Supreme Court has said the act of remaining silent in context can be used against you in a court of law. So context dependent, you do have to speak to use your right to remain silent.
Salinas vs. Texas
The prosecutor was allowed to use the defense silence as evidence during the trial.
In a case where a man was not under arrest, not detained and was admittedly giving a voluntary statement to the police. So, Yes, context is extremely important. In that case, the Supreme Court also said that there are exceptions to the rule they were following.
That was one of the dumbest opinions I ever read. I think it was Scalia who claimed that someone while remaining silent could try to think up an alibi therefore you must assert that you are remaining silent. I've been hoping to run into one of the dissenters just to ask what the hell happened. How can a right exist only when you speak it into being?
@@NuncNuncNuncNunc That is completely asinine. What's to stop someone from saying they plead the fifth and "making up an alibi" afterwards? Not that "making up an alibi" is any kind of justification for taking away someone's rights. The idea of invalidating someone's rights just because they could be thinking of a lie is infuriating.
@@Mirthful_Midori they give police officers days to make a statement after shooting a suspect whether it is justified or not.
@@stevelehto There was also a case in California (People vs. Tom) where the California Supreme Court ruled that defendant's silence could be used against him. It was post arrest pre Miranda. Sort of on the flip side you'll recall was the Kyle Rittenhouse case where the first thing the prosecutor brought up when Rittenhouse took the stand was the fact that he had remained silent. Then the judge chewed his butt.
The real question is not that the DA did this, it is how many times have they gotten away with doing this.
Nobody would do this if they got caught the first time, every time.
@@ianbattles7290 Even if they get caught, if there is no punishment then why wouldn't they try it?
No. The REAL question, is: With the burden of defense resting solely on the accused, does he even win...? Even with being exonerated, the state wins...How much were his legal expenses, AND, why isn't the state NOT automatically liable for the cost...?
Where are the sanctions? I don’t see it as fixed until someone pays.
that's all the justice you can expect in america
Thankfully, Illinois recently passed a law, unless it was overturned, that allows a person to sue arresting police officers, prosecutors and even judges who abuse the law against them. So I suspect this isn't over yet.
where's the Illinois BAR on this issue.....?
@@Icephoenix84😊
@@kenkayiii probably doing what you do at a Bar. Getting drunk trying ignore all the problems you are currently having.
The Court: "Resisting arrest is proof of guilt."
Also the Court: "Not resisting arrest is proof of guilt."
Everyone: "Wait a minute..."
The judicial victim had his life wrecked, probably lost his job and everything he owns. The prosecutor and judge should have all of their assets transferred to their victim and be disbarred. That would send a very clear message.
And forced to do menial labour (ex. cleaning toilets) for the rest of their lives.
They did a pre sentence investigation that was appproved but denied by the judge.The day of sentencing the defendants phone rang his supervisor was sending him to a job location on speaker phone ask the judge to release me I’m the person this is about!
FYI, if ended up serving time, the prosecutor and the judge did get away with it. This shows one of the HUGE flaws in the American Legal system where government officials can violates someone rights and are not accountable for their actions, and the person whose life they destroyed is not ever made whole again.
It's like that in most countries I'd say. Plenty of examples.
The sad part is there's no punishment in our society for prosecutorial/judicial/police misconduct.
Well there is, but you have to invoke the 2nd Amendment to use it.
Or if there is it takes a VERY long time for anything to be done.
@@frankney8284 part of the reason why I think there may be a second civil war at least possibly within our lifetime because eventually a group of people are going to get fed up with it and spark will ignite a fire and then spread across the country
@@frankney8284 More and more everyday I'm starting to think that may be the only way for us to be free. Either that or leave this stupid planet.
I believe they should face criminal penalties and if sued they should be held individually responsible. And when they're prosecuted they should be required to use an overworked public defender.
The prosecutor and judge should be disbarred and removed from office. Also, the government getting an appeal against itself is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I mean it's actually double jeopardy if you think about it.
A lot of judges were never lawyers and can't be disbarred... Lol
They can be disrobed.
@proprietarycurez8463
This is why the motto of the United States of America is 'In God we trust,' because the judicial system cannot be trusted.
Any extra expense this motorcyclist may have incurred by taking the case to superior courts should be paid for by the prosecution and the Judge.
Bleh, nude judges.
@@ithinkthere4iam435 yup!
" You have the right to remain silent, but if you do remain silent, we will assume you're guilty "
They assume you’re guilty anyway. Yet another reason we have a second amendment. If I’m presumed guilty and I’m going to be punished, I might as well be guilty and take a tyrant or two with me.
@@EnthalpyAndEntropy agreed.. cops bring the contempt on themselves.
You do know that that's the way our "justice" system works. It's not innocent until proven guilty, as so many naïvely believe. It's guilty until proven innocent. That's why as soon as you're accused of a crime you're arrested and thrown in jail, before anything has been proven.
That’s how it works in England and Wales.
@@MrTrailerman2 I couldn’t agree more but the problem here is that the courts are in collusion with the cops. One would think this case is a happy one since they came to the right conclusion. Wrong. It’s just one of a long train of abuses and usurpations. That guys “justice” was too little and far too late to actually be justice. Furthermore, suppose they don’t make that blatantly obvious mistake again; there are plenty more blatantly obvious mistakes that they’ll happily make. Just look at the gun laws Oregon has passed and continues to pass after Bruen.
"Ignorance of the law is not a defense..."
This should be held to judges, DA, prosecutors, and cops as well.
Time to start holding people accountable.
We have investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrong doing and have initiated plans to harass and arrest the compliant for their audacity in trying to make us accountable for our illegal and unconstitutional actions.
Given that the prosecutor BEGAN the trial by deliberately violating the rights of the man on trial, can the prosecutor be charged with anything? Malicious prosecution? An example needs to be made.
I paused the video and am staring at Steve in disbelief that ANY judge would construe remaining silent as an admission of any type of guilt. This judge should be sentenced to re - take 7th through 9th grade Civics Classes
IF he could even find a School that has the class.
@@jacksonterrier3441 Not all judges are lawyers.
Makes you wonder if someone bribed the proctor to allow someone else to take their bar exam. For that matter it's enough to make you wonder if they actually earned their law degree the old fashioned way.
@@mikeybhoutex There is nothing in this particular story to make us believe that this judge wasn't though. And if nothing else the prosecutor certainly was!
@@mikeybhoutexsome judges know nothing at all about the law. Instead, politics is the only thing that matters to them.
What's really scary is the cop, the judge AND all of the jury didn't question his right to remain silent. Civil rights should be a mandatory class in middle/high school.
and in the kyle rittenhouse case the judge was all over this when the state tried to use his silents.
It used to be part of the curriculum. In fact, you needed 2 years of American History to get into college. Makes me wonder what kids are getting taught in school these days.
First we need to learn how many genders there are
@@edwood8698Back then, nobody had tiny keyboards and autocorrect that would stop working without warning, or change good words to bad words for no reason.
@@jamesrecknor6752 Do you even know what a gender is? Also, unrelated do you know how many sexes there are?
Comply, you’re guilty. Don’t comply, you’re guilty at least of resisting arrest. Yeah, that makes no sense. How that makes sense in the eyes of people who have studied the law and passed the bar is beyond me.
egos sometimes are a problem with people who are given some authority over the poor saps minding their own business. they have to assert their authority for some kind of ego boost, maybe a check mark on their resume whatever,
Don't comply, you must be innocent. Works two ways.
It doesn't matter, Steve, that you never said that. Other YT lawyer programs have suggested that one should explicitly inform the officers that they are invoking their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. They say to ask for a lawyer and then shut up.
They aren't saying that this is necessary in order to exercise the right to remain silent, but rather it strengthens any potential claims one might bring against them for violating constitutional rights. It _might_ help prove that the officials' conduct rose above a simple desire to get a confession by crossing the line into unconstitutional actions.
_Edit to add:_ By "doesn't matter_ I mean that to some viewers, internet lawyers are interchangeable.
Oh it makes perfect sense, if your primary motivation is padding your conviction statistics or meeting a quota.
Your mistake is thinking they actually give a damn about The People's Rights
GIGO
The judge should be disbarred and made to personally pay restitution to the man who had to do jail time. Our courts have gotten downright criminal.
The prosecutor and the judge both deserve to be disbarred.
And if he does disobey the cop's directives and does make a scene in the store, he's resisting arrest. They had him coming and going.
Catch 22 (modern version).
If he resists arrest, following the judges thought process, he's innocent, even of resisting arrest.
What if the defendant is is a mute?
He could have been compliant with the instruction to not make a scene, but still verbally asserted his innocence. _Not doing this doesn't prove guilt,_ but it's a third alternative to the Hobson's Choice mentioned above.
@@spaceflight1019 That's a mute point
Unfortunately, overturning the verdict does not give this man back the time he spent behind bars or undo the damage to his life as a result.
At least 2 years of lost wages plus attorney fees.
He probably wasn’t in custody. In cases like this the appeal would be longer than the sentence the defendant is often given bail.
If he actually had to serve time, he would certainly be well justified in filing a civil lawsuit against the jurisdiction that convicted him on a false premise.
@@joshualandry3160 It depends on how much money you have. Plenty of poor defendants languish in pre-trial detention for years. He was found guilty. He was probably in jail during the appeal process.
Maybe a few trillion in damages lawsuit will help that
No prosecutor's error is "Harmless"
On the contrary, if the prosecuting attorney fails to show up to court, the defendant can't claim to have been harmed by it.
@@joshuahudson2170 Not showing up for court is not an error, it is a decision.
Prosecutors are second in terms of immunity from our laws. Judges have absolute and are obviously first.
It's such a sad system where the people in charge must be basically totally immune from it.
@@hashbrown4781 They recently granted QI to a civil engineer for impersonating a police officer. Can't remember name and location but it's Google-able.
@Winston S. Qualified Immunity is lower, but much worse. In every way, it is the same as "ignorance of the law IS the excuse."
Best to have a bunch of undertrained thugs and give them qualified immunity rather than training them properly and leaving them open to liability.
The State should pay for putting him in jail! This money should come from the prosecuting attorneys and judges!
I will never respect a prosecutor that is so hungry for blood that they work to deny a citizen’s rights just to “win” a case.
Judges need to be removed when they make these bad decisions.
No. Only if they keep making bad decisions. Nobody is perfect.
@@TheRealScooterGuy Then a point system needs to be in place that if you get too many points you are gone
Ahhh...this was a basic right that even a high school kid knows. Not a complex area of law. The Judge and Prosecutor needs to go.
@@TheRealScooterGuy How many strikes do they get?
@@clintmatthews3500 It should vary... Kind of like how many licks does it take to get to the Footsie Roll center of a Footsie Pop? Not the same each time.
On a serious note, think about human natute, and ask yourself how such a rule would change the appellate process. Appeals judges like a certain judge? They might find an excuse not to overturn a case, just to save that judge's career.
We have a system in most state courts. If a judge is making bad decisions, vote him or her out.
It's a hallmark of evil characters in fiction and real life to impose harsh punishments for honest mistakes. That leads to cover-ups. We don't want to be the evil characters.
Good! Excercising our rights shouldn't be considered suspicious.
Watch someone exercise our 2nd Amendment Right and see how violently treated they will be.
... or uncooperative.
@@Sondan1988 That's only if you are poor or a minority.
With police, prosecutors and too many courts, it is damned if you don’t, damned if you do. Speed, suspicious, drive the speed limit, suspicious. Wear sunglasses, suspicious, don’t wear sunglasses, suspicious. Walk down the street with ear buds, suspicious, walking without ear buds, suspicious….
@@dougbotimer8005you driving sober isn't good enough for some cops.
I sincerely hope that innocent man can sue over that miscarriage of justice and wins a lot of money, as well as ensuring the idiots involved never work in law again.
Well, the cop is now dead, the judge and prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity; they can do whatever, obviously and unbelievably wrong, and nothing can make them accountable. Absolute immunity is qualified immunitys big brother, who takes steroids and bullies even his girlfriend. He can sue and even win, city will pay, but thats about all she wrote, the end.
@@janemiettinen5176 You misunderstood. The dead cop is the one from the original Miranda case, not this one.
@@thevoiceofreason8240 Oh, thanks, I was knitting while listening. It doesnt change the sad facts much, tho.
@@janemiettinen5176 Immunity wont stop a bullet.
Illegal AF, and that judge should have been disbarred immediately.
I find it unconscionable that a lawyer can be that oblivious to the constitution and it's amendments. Or even worse, to blatantly ignore it. That lawyer and judge deserve to be disbarred for gross misconduct. And it they honestly thought they were right, they need to be disbarred for being ignorant.
Not one lawyer. Remember the Rittenhouse persecutor also made that claim. But the judge had read the bill of rights, and dressed him down for it.
They cannot be assumed to be ignorant of the Constitution and its Amendments - they are admitted members of the Bar Association after all, so they don't get that option as an excuse. This is willful disregard of said documents.
I agree that they should be disbarred. A law should also be enacted for future cases of willful disregard that (now former) attorneys/judges spend two says in prison (or jail, as the case may be) for every one day a wrongly convicted defendant did. That would put a stop to this behavior, as their own asses would be on the line (hopefully not in the literal sense).
This is actually what the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" line was originally describing.
@@bms9144 I may be in the minority but I think your proposal is going too soft on lawyers & judges. I would say that any lawyer or judge that grossly & willfully disregards rights of a citizen that results in ANY jail time [or similar] should be AT LEAST a 2nd degree felony that is upgradeable to a 1st degree felony depending on the circumstances and what the citizen was found guilty of.
@@erutherford Hey, I get your point. "With great power comes great responsibility."
The prosecutor attempted this during the rittenhouse case and almost caused a mistrial. The judge chewed him out for not recognizing a dependents inherent right to remain silent and it not be used against him in court.
BINGER
Kyle's lawyers did not want a mistrial because they knew he would be Acquitted, unless it was a mistrial with prejudice which means Kyle could not be charged again. That DA should have been disbarred.
It's so unbelievable that an experienced prosecutor would make this mistake that the most likely explanation is that he was trying for a mistrial because they were losing so badly.
@@Daynja1 I believe it. This is the same idiot that pointed a gun at the jury.
Jury going along with this is scary. Stop skipping jury duty folks. We need rational people in there.
Authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action.
Teach your families, friends and neighbors because the gov has been brainwashing us all forever. Most are still watching and believing gov/ corp media propaganda.
Agree! I’ve been on 4 juries. The prosecution lost on 3 of 4 because they did not prove guilt.
The problem is that the jury is only allowed to use the law that the judge gives them. The sole role of the jury is to weigh the evidence and see if the prosecution/plaintiff has made its case. If they did decide to vote not guilty, then this wouldn't have gotten to the appellate court and ultimately the highest court in the state. Now, there is precedence that other attorneys can use if the situation happens again. If juries nullify the charges, then it's whack-a-mole where every jury has to nullify it or people wind up going to prison over blatantly unconstitutional things.
It sucks for those that are wrongfully convicted and have to hope that it gets fixed on appeal, but there isn't really a better way of addressing these things.
The rational people realize that the judge, clerk, bailiffs, court recorder, prosecutors, defence attorneys, paralegals, police officers, forensic specialists, expert witnesses and pretty much everyone else is paid to be there but the jurors (who are supposed to be an important, integral part of the process) are paid diddly squat and even lose money for their attendance. Civic duty be damned...it doesn't pay for the groceries or mortgage.
@@AcidFlash123no, it doesn't pay diddly, but remember that if you ever have to go to court and defend yourself.
There needs to be serious consequences for government officials that so blatantly violate the rights of the people. Qualified immunity has got to go. The judge and prosecutor should be disbarred, and probably lose their homes if not go to prison.
They did a blatant violation of rights... they should have to serve triple the time that was unlawfully served and be disbarred.
Losing their homes could unjustly penalize innocent family members. Better to stick to other consequences for their blatant violations. "Unqualified immunity" might be a more accurate term.
Death penalty
They should keep their homes, where they will serve time under house arrest; paying for their own incarceration.
@@HippieLongHaired When I say they should lose their homes its because they need to liquidate all their assets to pay out a large judgement to the citizen they wronged.
Judgements that so clearly violate constitutional rights should have some form of repercussion for the issuing judge.
Forget the Judge . What about that jury? If I were a juror I'd still be in there calling bullshit.
If the evidence was really “overwhelming”, as the prosecutor claims, then there would have been no reason to raise the silence issue. This appears to be gross misconduct by the prosecutor and the judge.
the appeals court would have upheld if his lawyer didn't object at the right time as a waived right and harmless error
some states now require affirmative defense, meaning you have to speak to be found not guilty
judge and prosecutor are CO-WORKERS
@@ihatecrackheadwhat states? And is there any case law supporting that conclusion? it sounds ridiculous
I have seen SO MANY abuses of "Justice" that I believe prosecutors and judges are only meant to give a forward facing legal/judicial facade to whatever powers are working behind the Capitalist machine...if I was in China, I can EASILY presume/argue the same, but with more Communist looking facades. The idea that Capitalism has ANY ethics or morals baked into it is a fools presumption. 97% conviction rates, nothing works this well...EVER. The USA is a billboard advertising green acres with a COP behind it doing the "dirty work". AND YOU PAY THEM SO WELL...and qualified immunity? Civil forfeiture? Interesting.
@@madman4043
an example of affirmative defense.
in many states, it is a defense to statutory rape if you reasonably thought the minor was over 18.
i.e. you met at a bar and have to be 18 to get into the bar. most of those states require you to get on the stand to use that defense. meaning the state doesn't have to prove it isn't a defense, you have to affirm the defense
Tennessee doesn't, the state has to prove you didn't meet at a bar after a guy slept with a minor he met at a bar, she got in cause her parents own the bar and she was hooking up with patrons. TN has to prove you knew the minor was underage or that you acted recklessly toward their age.
she never said she was 18 tho, that is actually called rope in 26 states. it's called rope by deception. it's even the dictionary and has been illegal in TN for 20 years.
1 guy got 30 years for pretending to be a woman's fiancee. she said is this cris, he said yes.
case was called raymond "fantasy man" mitchell
he called women late at night and told them to get naked and unlock the door and lay on a bed with a blindfold. the yes answer got him 30 years.
@@madman4043 In most states, failing to lodge an objection at trial waives the issue on appeal, even if there was a genuine reversible error. In this case, the attorneys DID object, and were overruled, which preserves the issue for appeal; the defense did exactly the right thing here. Had they failed to do so, they might have not been able to appeal the decision even though the court should in fact have declared a mistrial.
That's not ALWAYS true: There are SOME issues that can be raised for the first time on appeal even if not raised at trial. But by and large, you need to preserve an error on the record for the appellate court to review it and say "Yep, that was a mistake that we need to fix." It's just how appeals work.
The prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case tried to use Rittenhouse's 5th amendment against him in the trial, and the judge ripped the prosecutor a new one.
But non the less, Rittenhouse broke many laws and is a murderer and should be in prison.
@@daddydo17he didn't break ANY laws and protected himself from multiple violent convicted criminals and one was a violent pedophile who should have been ended long before
@@daddydo17 lol cope…. He was already judged and found not guilty…. Why you defending cho mos?
@@daddydo17 you should contact the Kenosha district attorney's office with this information.
@@daddydo17 Did you not watch the trial and see all the video evidence that proved he clearly acted in self defense? Get a grip on reality there buttercup !!!
I can't believe what I'm hearing! That prosecutor and especially the judge should be censured at the very least! This should be a permanent stain on their careers.
Silence is well established. The Judge should removed and the attorney's who asserted silence as evidence guilt should be disbarred.
There should be a rule where all those involved in law who attempt to gain a conviction by pulling stupid and or outrageous things have to serve the sentence of their victim.
If this rule was in place there’d be quite a few prosecutors judges and police officers behind bars and all those who’d act like gods other wise would find another profession.
Sadly, even if the High Court of Illinois ruled in the Defendent's favor, he lost 2 years of his life in prison, for exercising his constitutional rights. The prosecutor & lower court still screwed over the defendent. Very sad. :(
Sue them into oblivion. Wrongful imprisonment.
@@1337penguinman The main problem is that the criminals have become a part of the operation, and are on the wrong side of the bars.
He should have been released after the Appeals Court decided. But you're very right. None of this would repay him for the time he spent behind bars or the cost of his legal team.
Illinois is full blown leftist commie totalitarian tyrantville anymore....they do this because they can and the real criminals in Chigongo are DANGEROUS and they have to take down non dangerous prey animals like this poor bastard.
I hope he can sue and get millions.
i wouldn't say sad i'd say outrageous. where is the jail time for these people depriving citizens of their rights? is that not a crime anymore? no wonder it goes on.
Any judge that doesn't immediately declare a mistrial when this is even suggested is not fit for the office. End of discussion. Any lawyer who even suggests it is not fit for the job. End of discussion.
you cannot enforce laws against theor who make and enforce laws, they wont punish themselves or others in government, in other words you cannot self check they will protect teh state over us. when there is no conflict they will rule accordingly, but when it comes to accountablity they will protect the state over anything else.
We need to bring back the gallows for these tyrannical oathbreakers.
@@WitnessingTyranny LONG PAST TIME the black robed traitors and das are the root of the treason......
Exactly. At a minimum, a prosecutor must be admonished, and a jury advised, if there is any attempt to imply silence or refusal to testify against yourself it is NOT an indicator of guilt. It is a Constitutional right.
@@WitnessingTyranny Woodchippers. We need something as horrifying to these self-appointed nobility as the guillotine was to the French Aristocrats.
This is what happens when people think "silence is violence"
Underrated comment. I think you are onto something. New judges and prosecutors in the current educational system are being taught this. That is probably how this got so far.
GOOD POINT!
And overturning the sentence doesn't give him back the time he lost while being locked up.
I would consider a case like this as evidence that the lower court is NOT interested in justice. Their concern is just getting convictions.
Since the prosecutor started his case using this absurd legal notion, and the judge NEVER stopped him, it seems most likely to me that this judge is ignorant of the law and (most likely) the prosecutor knew he could present this argument and manipulate the judge into accepting it.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest they used this tactic before. I don't _know_ that they have, but it seems likely.
And the judge probably isn't a lawyer
Not ignorant. Just on a power trip. I think the call on the supreme court sending a message is right: they're saying "Anybody making this call again, expect action from us to have the bar association remove your right to practice law".
If they started naming these judges, prosecutors, cops, this kind of crap would slow way down.
Judges and Prosecutors work together at the local level.
How the heck does that area have such police, such prosecutors, and such judges? Baffling
Liberals
@@prex345 I beg to differ, liberals are for higher education, conservatives are the ones trying to f*ck over schools and ban books.
This is common in Illinois,very corrupt!
@@prex345corruption and idiocy are apolitical, morons try to make it political
Massive corruption. Lots of people power tripping as well.
If you think about it there's multiple years of jail time for what is a minor traffic violation elsewhere in the country... Placed in a kangaroo court... With the expectation that you will either give them a bunch of money or you go to jail. And if they send you to jail they profit off of that too so it doesn't matter either way.
And if you don't believe any of that you can actually look it up yourself.
I remember Thomas Binger (Rittenhouse trial) flirting with the “silence implies guilt” issue.
The judge excused the jury before hammering and admonishing that little toadstool.
It’s astonishing a supposedly competent attorney would even try to circumvent the 5th Amendment.
To say “anything you say can and will be used against you” combined with “also anything you don’t say” is evil and tyrannical.
That was hilarious as Judge Schroeder cut little Bingie deep, wide and continuous for impugning Rittenhouse's right to remain silent when questioned by the "authorities".
@@Chisos1 He chided Binger outside the presence of the jury and then took no material adverse action against him or the prosecution's case. Binger is probably used to doing that in other cases but Schroeder didn't want him doing it in front of the cameras, so Schroeder decided to be performative for the camera so nobody would notice he did nothing of substance to punish Binger.
That prosecutor should have been disbarred for that stunt.
The adage is "Silence implies consent".
@@Vaelosh466Some ways its worse to tell the jury to disregard it. You only emphasize it in their minds.
The sad reality is that they all consider all of our rights irrelevant.
The judge who allowed this miscarriage of justice should be entirely stripped of being any part of the legal system! Same with those prosecutors!
Any official who violates constitutional rights should be immediately removed from office and arrested
I saw a video probably a year ago where a woman was stopped for a traffic violation and she wouldn’t answer the questions the officer asked her. He wanted to know where she was going and where she came from. He asked a few other stupid questions and she refused to answer by being silent. He made her get out of the car and handcuffed her and arrested her. Now this is truly as stupid as it could possibly get when it comes to a dumb cop: “He said to her” “you have the right to remain silent“. This is dumber than dumb and on top of everything else she was an attorney and she worked for the states prosecutors office. Eventually a butt whooping ensued. The Pennsylvania State police told me I couldn’t talk to them. They sent me a citation for disorderly conduct and fighting with first responders. They couldn’t shut me up. Less then six minutes to whoop them in court pro se.
Woman was a lawyer. Stop was in NJ. Rebecca Musara.
You have the option to cooperate with police and if you answer their questions they might be more lenient with you. Or they could just be looking for more evidence of guilt and will use anything you say against you. It's a risk you take talking to the police. Obviously if you don't mind a little inconvenience and want protect yourself don't give the police any information. Overall you might get booked on some bs charge and eventually released but cooperating with police could lead to much larger and more serious charges. You have no idea what they're looking for so it's generally in your best interest to not cooperate until you have a lawyer there to mediate. If you cooperate without a third party there the police could testify you said something different.
I saw that.
@@supernova743 this is why everyone should have a dash cam. Hell I'd say that a working dashcam should be a more important requirement for new cars than a freaking vapour capture system and tpms.
I recently watched a video that had body cam footage on it, asking if the suspect had taken a "shooting pose," when he was shirtless, hands up and not moving. But 3 seconds before that suspect came into view as the cop walked through the open door, a different cop yelled "shots fired," very clearly. There were no shots of coarse.
He accomplished his goal. They don't care if she get's prosecuted or not they want to make it painful to punish her for making their job more difficult. There is no recourse, they give you a questionable ticket, get your car towed and impounded. You're out a $1000, they go home knowing they won't get punished because somehow this is their job. Courts get fees. government get's fee's and fines, you get to be late to work.
The fact this even happened at all is why I have no faith in the justice system.
Back in college I was pulled over while driving hours from home on a back road I didn’t know the speed limit of. I was going a little slower than what the speed limit ended up being and I was pulled over and questioned if I had been drinking. I was near a college at the time so I can understand the need to screen, but he would not allow me to take a field sobriety test and breathalyzer. He demanded I get a blood test. I said “I am not refusing but I would like another officer to witness this.” He then let me go. I later found out had I said I refused, I would have been arrested despite being completely sober as I’ve always been.
At least fifty percent of judges graduated in the bottom half of their judicial education program
Steve described this case as bizarre only because he starts from a premise that most police, prosecutors and judges aren't corrupt.
If only that were actually true.
What sort of attorneys are law schools putting out when both the prosecution and the judge go along with this?
Steve, they don't "miss" obvious things, they know and don't care, they are ruthless and want a conviction no matter what. Otherwise they wouldn't arrest people for one thing then drop that and change the charge hoping something else will stick.
the old throw spaghetti against the wall trick.
The majority of the commenters believe it was a mistake. We're so naive. Prosecutors are in the business of incarcerating people not seeking justice as some would believe.
The fact that any judge went yea that makes sense is insane. I remember watching the Kyle Rittenhouse case and when the prosecutor began to comment on his silence the judge ripped him a new one
The prosecutor and the judge in the trial court need to be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, the fact that they tried this and were only put in check by the appellate court shows that they are completely unqualified to serve in ANY level of the justice system ANYWHERE
Don’t forget that in today’s society most people think you’re guilty simply for being charged with something. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard say well he’s obviously guilty or he wouldn’t be on trial 🤦🏻♂️
They knew they were wrong but did it to get a conviction anyway. There is no justice.
It was the jury that ultimately convicted the person. This is what concerns me the most. The jury is the last line of defense for the innocent. If they side with government, then all hope is lost. I remember Steve said in one episode that jury tend to believe the police. This case proves that point.
Outside the big cities, that is true. "Back The Blue until it happens to you."
I think the judge also gives jury instructions as in you will ignore this. Curious if a juror asked for clarification on the 5th amendment.
@@frankney8284 I back the blue I'll confirm the truth in that but I like hearing all the evidence being laid out before I make a decision and I'll call out if an officer is being corrupt bullshit is bullshit
Unfortunately, juries are made up of every day people, and generally speaking, they are not very astute when it comes to the law and constitutional rights. And lawyers from both sides play on that ignorance, but it's more egregious when the prosecution preys on that ignorance. Juries are fed which ever sides is doing the presentation or arguments which is/can be quite persuasive
That was one of the first things we learned in law school. That the act of remaining silent cannot be used against you by the prosecutor !!!
the act of remaining silent CAN be used against you by your wife though.
how about Salinas v. Texas (2013) and People v. Tom (2014)? both held that remaining silent could be used as evidence, and that is was necessary to assert the right to silence.
@@brokenrecord3095 Not if he also is the DA. Did you catch my comifornia jab there?
@satoau1 both of these cases the defendant, spoke to the police prior. You don't have to invoke your right to be silent, but once you do you can't selectively pick what questions you want to answer.
@@giantdad1661 not true.
"Two recent court cases illustrate situations when a person’s silence could be used against him or her, without violating the Fifth Amendment or Miranda. Both involve failure by the defendant to assert the right to silence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. __ (2013), dealt with a situation in which the defendant spoke to the police voluntarily during a murder investigation, meaning that he was not under arrest when the purportedly incriminating event occurred. When the police officer asked the defendant about his possible involvement in the murder, the officer testified, the defendant became very quiet, and his entire demeanor changed. Police offered the defendant’s silence and behavioral change as incriminating evidence. The court held that police did not violate the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination, in part because the defendant did not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.
The California Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in a recent decision, People v. Tom, No. S202107 (Cal., Aug. 14, 2014), which involved evidence of literal silence after an alleged drunk-driving accident-specifically, that the defendant “expressed no concern about the well-being of the other people involved in the collision.” Since this lack of concern occurred after the defendant’s arrest but before he received Miranda warnings, and because he did not expressly assert his right to silence, the court held that his rights were not violated."
The prosecutors who argued this should be disbarred and the judge should be thrown off the bench
In my opinion, any judge who doesn't understand and/or apply basic laws, especially if it ends in serious penalties, should be disbarred.
The real crime here is it took all the way to the Supreme Court to get justices¡
State Supreme Court
It Was the Court of Appeals that first gave him justice, the State Supreme Court just reaffirmed their ruling.
@@stevenwoodward5923 That seems to be the norm. Corrupt local judges for revenue. 15k to fight it with an appeal. Our justice system is worthless so the way to the Supreme Court.
@@stevenwoodward5923 the fact the state apealed after the lower court found the def was in his rights
Don't forget the two years in prison over this.
If a prosecutor and judge came out of law school with such 5th ammendmant misunderstandings maybe they could sue the school for malpractice.
I’m appalled that someone on the jury didn’t scream bloody murder that silence is your right. Illinois needs to improve their education system!
Thats how you get charged with contempt of court and forced to hang out in a jail cell til you agree to stop disruptin the trial
And yes, that does happen
Was the jury silent during the trial? If so, they're guilty too!
-
It's okay, we'll figure out what they're guilty of later.
Jury nullification. If you know the constitution says right to remain silent and the circus continues you don't convict.
or you bring up you cannot continue with this trial and request they assign you to a different one since you can't ignore the defendant's rights.
the prosecutor, judge and anyone involved in saying "silence = guilt" should either be removed from their job or have all their cases highly scrutinized for being so insane.
The original judge should also be cited for judicial misconduct.
The prosecutor who claimed silence and compliance were proof of guilt, and the judge who agreed with him, should be on trial themselves and should definitely be disbarred.
I know Steve said it twice in the video and went on at length musing over it, but it cannot be said enough, that the state told that he could be silent and that could not be used against him, then they used it against him.
If the defense attorney really wanted to push it, I wonder if they could sue the state for deprivation of rights under the colour of law for this stunt? Because the prosecutor made a bogus claim about his right to silence not just being invalid, but evidence of guilt, and the judge supported it, both should have knowing they were wrong. I also have to wonder if this judge and prosecutor have any type of relationship outside of the court room, or if there's a suspicious trend of successful prosecutions when these two are in the same court room.
Yeah I'm in Illinois. Wen I was a kid in trouble years ago my lawyer objected to a hearsay witness. The judge said. "The law is what I say it is in my courtroom" I do believe that's how court is here. They can do whatever they want to whoever they want and if you get in trouble you'd better have fat wallet.
Yes I also had the same deal in court in Illinois and not as a kid.This state is so corrupt.
@@davemckee4907I hate Illinois as soon as I can leave I'm taking the chance
That DA should be removed from office. If they argue that in court they either don't understand the law or they choose to ignore it in order to get a win. A DA's job shouldn't be to get wins in court it should be to make sure that the law is upheld regardless of a guilty or non guilty ruling.
The judge, and any other judge who so egregiously violates an enumerated right, should be censured, sued and fired. Violating a civil right in the conduct of your official federal duty is a felony. The prosecuting attorney and his entire team should also be charged.
I’m asking a honest question, how the hell do these guys become judges and let something this fundamentally simple happen?
They're former prosecutors and are not unbiased. Their goal is a show trial with a guilty verdict.
I'm most areas judges are elected in the world's dumbest popularity contest, where qualifications come last.
Diversity hires
Nepotism, cronyism, diversity hires.
@yuridavila6095 most judges are elected in northamerica
The fact that these things take so long to address that they’re fundamentally moot by the time the ruling comes down indicates that there need to be steep criminal penalties for prosecutors and judges that blatantly violate the constitution in this manner.
That is one of the problems with the court system. They will correct lower court mistakes, but refuse to do any policing of the system itself to educate or eliminate incompetent judges. It is a rarity for anyone to take any kind of action against a sitting judge.
Neither a judge nor prosecutor should be given the benefit of the doubt for this type of misconduct.
It should be a crime. I'm tired of these people being able to trample on people's rights and get away with it.
In cases like this where someone goes to prison due to people doing whatever they want it seems that those people should face some sort of consequences.
The judge should have every legal credential he has revoked and he should be in prison for about 3 years. Examples need to be made.
@@AlcideIzMine for now they do. Our justice system is a joke. It is eventually being replaced because nobody can trust it anymore.
PRE & POST Rigjt to remain Silent is the Pinnacle of our DUE PROCESS Greatness! It’s unconstitutional to judge anyone on “remaining silent”!
Judge was asleep in law school when they discussed that. I can just imagine the defense attorney’s blood pressure when the judge let that in. Mistrial !
The judge and prosecutor needs to be disbarred and wow they picked a stupid jury. They also need to be sued into poverty just to set an example.
Good. I remember when Binger was yelled at for even bringing it up during the Rittenhouse trial.
Aren't we told NOT to argue with law enforcement? Take the ticket and tell it to the judge. 😢
Trial judge is incompetent. Every case he has sat on needs investigated.
Let me know when it's okay to drag these tyrants into the street for a tar and feathers session.
It'll never ok as long as the tyrants who'd be tarred and feathered are still in charge. So you have to get them all at the same time...
/I didn't say that, you can't prove it, tyrants! :p
@@sparkyUSA1976 Not terrifying enough. Woodchipper.
It's happening all over the country. Rabbid prosecutgers going wild with cases that are minor and in the next breath whimpering undwer the table letting 12 times offenders free. To say we the public are sick of it is a understgatement.
I didn't realize he did actual jail time until the end...
Crazy... I think he should be able to sue because of the constitutional violation.
What is even more amazing than the fact that the prosecutor used that argument (they are supposed to be for justice, but we know how they roll) is the fact that they, once they got the results from the appellate court, decided to continue fighting. If he was in jail, nothing will give him back the time, and remove the trauma and the possible destruction of his family. Even a suspended sentence is a nightmare for the innocent. Finally, 4 years with a crime attached to his name could mean he lost the window of opportunity to improve his life. Even so, removing the mark can be the difference between getting or not getting a good job, and the possibility of negotiating a rise.
Wouldn't that open the door for malicious prosecution?
Stunning that the judge and prosecutor didn’t know the guys rights. Hopefully he is ok now and can seek recompense for his time.
Come now. Steve! It's not so surprising that a prosecutor thinks he could get away with something illegal in the courtroom. Often the administrators of the court are buddy buddies with their ex colleagues or ex colleagues firm or ex colleagues mentees etc. In the end it doesn't hurt his career, he gets a win, the government can't be held at fault, and the only one who loses is the citizen. My father was an esteemed president of a bank and his life was destroyed in a trial court in El Paso, Texas and it absolutely wrecked his life and impoverished our family. He never recovered. The justice system is a nightmare - he has already lost one way or another by the time an upstanding citizen enters a courtroom.
So again, it's not at all surprising when I see dastardly deeds done by the friends of the court, the prosecutors or law enforcement.
By the time someone becomes a judge they've repeatedly been taught better. The original trial court judge thereby committed malice. He should be removed and disbarred.
Wow that’s absolutely insane. There’s only three possible scenarios of the reasons why the prosecutor or judge would do this, out of jest or a joke(misconduct), ignorance(unqualified), or malice(criminal) and in all three scenarios there is no way in these people keeping their positions or jobs.
Another one is where a lady voluntarily goes into the police station, gets tired of the questions and says she wants an attorney. They arrest her saying she was free to leave the whole time but didn't so they kept on asking.
So another example of someone complying with law enforcement is convicted??? How could that have even happened?
Because cops enforce feelings, prosecutors bring cases to fluff up their conviction rate for re-election, and judges can do whatever the heck they want until they REALLY go over the line.
The kyle rittenhouse trial, the Honorable Judge Schroder laid into the prosecutor, Thomas Binger, for making a comment concerning the defendants silence in front of the jury.
"I was astonished, when you began the examination by commenting on the defendants post arrest silence. Thats been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years, I have no idea why you would do something like that!"
Those who would convict the innocent should serve the sentence.
Imagine that original judge passing down his verdict.
"There may not be a lot of evidence or witnesses, but this suspect's silence says more than any words ever could"
That's really chilling that a prosecutor would even try that. It means that he thought that it would work and go unpunished.
That is as bad as a judge allowing denial of a "voluntary" search was propable cause to search.
That probably happens a lot.
@@johntracy72 yup.
That becomes probable cause to eccentric a traffic stop and call a K-9 unit that will then fake an alert for drugs.
I was told by a judge in my area that "His courtroom was not the place to argue the constitutionality of a law". That is the first line of defense in a legal issue so why wouldn't arguing the constitutionality of a law be permitted? Could it be that the lower courts do not want to set precedent for defense against certain laws knowing that the majority of people will not be able to afford an appeal? They want those convictions at any cost even if they get appealed. The court costs and fines have been paid and the sentence executed so why should they bother? That is their paychecks.