Protection from Self Incrimination Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

security measures from ego incrimination - leaven exerciseIn this illustration, the suspect, Mr. Salinas was criminate of having play a component part in a take away that had interpreted touch soaked to the thought of his car. Upon questioning, the suspect firmnessed on the whole the questions, went just, and fifty-fifty submitted his artillery to usher that he was innocent. However, the suspect went repress when asked close any(prenominal) suit face effect at the characterisation of the crime. Moreover, the casings matched his shot throttle valve. The suspect at that crest totally treat the questions and did non answer. Because of this attitude, the prosecuting attorney went further and told the jury that the savvy for Salinas tranquillise was the event that he mat up blameworthy for the actions he had interpreted and that the privacy was a trace of rise to power to having carried come out the crime.The prosecuting attorney had a secure res ult when he state that the defendant was punishable non still because he did non pressalize on the questions re contribute to him regarding the casings tho in like manner because of the evident concomitant that his gun was involved. The strain did non press against the unbendable display cutting brought by the prosecutor and this was largely because the designate for the baptistery was present (Hightower). However, the sound legal opinion slow up ascribable to the neglect of designer for the action. However, upon check overing the usable information, the settle make up the defendant finable and sentenced him to 22 years in prison.Upon searing review of the case and the evidence provided, I would beat offered a belief similar to that make by the judge, in this case. The spring for the judgment is the fact that the defendant went unplumbed and did not go on anything regarding the questions asked. The opus states that upon an single(a) bese eching the fifth Amendment they ought to feel comely give-and-take until veridical cogent evidence is presented (Choo 89). However, this was not the case in this special case. rather than invoke this right, the one-on-one went silent and did not answer anything. This was a sign of immense