We all know that the Miranda Rights were put into action to stop a victim on self-incriminating himself. A person has the right to remain silent until a lawyer is present. Self-incrimination is exposing oneself to an accusation or charge of any type of crime. Someone can admit to a crime after waving their rights, but reaming silent should not be something that puts you behind bars. If something like this did happen to you, you should call your Bucks County criminal lawyer and get this taken care of quickly.
In the case of Commonwealth v. Molina, the prosecutor tried to use the defendant’s pre-arrest silence to try to render a guilty verdict. Now according to the United States Supreme Court , and 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution using someone’s silence is against the law, and should not be the basis of a guilty verdict.
In this case, Molina decided not to talk to the officers, and exercise his pre-arrest silent right to the full extent. In a clause in the 5th amendment it states that silence cannot be used as substantive evidence in proving ones guilt. Molina’s right was violated when the prosecutor in his closing arguments used his silence in a pre-arrest interview to imply that he was guilty of the victim’s disappearance. The prosecutor’s argument was in no way evidence, he emphasized Molina’s silence as “most telling” asking “why” he did not talk to the officers, and told the jury to “factor that in” when deliberating the verdict. Using his silence was not harmless because the other two testimonies were not overwhelming, and the violation of Molina’s rights could possibly end him up in jail. This right against “self-incrimination” can not be used in the courtroom to prove someone’s guilty according to the Supreme Court, but should it be legal as a tool for a prosecutor to use? It will all be determined...someday. For your information the cite of Molina is Commonwealth v. Molina 104 A.3d 430 (Pa. 2014).