Prosecution’s Use of the Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Stay Silent

Although anything a defendant says can be used against him court, anything he may NOT say may also be used against him in court as substantive evidence of guilt. However, the prosecution is constitutionally limited as to the extent of invoking your silence against you in court.

Even though the prosecution may be able to use your pre-arrest silence as incriminating evidence against you, criminal lawyer may be able to prevent this based on the fact that it is irrelevant and lacks any probative value. Most judges tend to look at a defendant’s pre-arrest silence as the defendant’s constitutional right and will generally refuse to let the prosecution from introducing it as evidence.

The prosecution can also attempt to introduce your post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as impeaching evidence. However, your criminal lawyer can exclude this evidence by arguing the discrepancy of courts as to whether such evidence can used is substantive and should be properly excluded.

The Constitution, under the Due Process Clause, guarantees each individual the right to invoke silence without any recourse once he or she has been arrested and given Miranda rights. But nevertheless, the prosecution can still introduce evidence of whether you showed preference for answering certain inquiries but not others.

The bottom line is that the prosecution can use every little piece of evidence from the second you were arrested through your trial against you in court. As such, it is imperative that you hire a competent criminal attorney to protect your constitutional rights and have the criminal charges dismissed.

To schedule a complimentary consultation with criminal attorney Param Pabla, please call (916) 285-7900.