a couple of things

In the past ten days or so, I have seen numerous reports and commentary on a recent decision by the Supreme Court that is said to dilute the 1966 Miranda decision.

To be honest, my reaction is that the issue is being pretty poorly reported. One, I don't understand it, and two, I don't understand the circumstances and rationale in the decision. (That may or may not be important, but if they are going to try to convince me that this is a good/bad thing, one way or another, they should try harder).

The deal here seems to be that for a detainee to assert his or her right to silence, he needs to say so. Yes, I know, much is being made of this paradox, but that seems to be it. In the issue that was presented to the court, a suspect was advised of his rights, he stated that he understood them, and then was questioned for a period of time, during which he declined to answer by remaining silent. At some point in the questioning, the suspect did answer at least two questions, one of which was "do you believe in God?", and the other was something along the lines of "do you pray for forgiveness for shooting that boy down?". The suspect answered in the affirmative to both questions.

It is not clear what role the answers had in his subsequent conviction, but the issue before the Supreme Court was the position of the defendant that, in his initial silence, the suspect had asserted his 5th amendment right, and that his subsequent statement had no legal validity. The court ruled that a detainee must make a clear statement that he is asserting his right for it to be binding, in short, to be silent, he must speak up.

Some legal scholars stated that at least it will empower courts to rule in favor of police and prosecutors in ambiguous circumstances.

In my opinion, the defendant was doing pretty well with the silent treatment, and caused his own problems by answering anything at all. If one wants to remain silent, nothing was stopping him.

What I don't understand in the court's admonition is this: if I were arrested and declared to authorities, in the presence of an attorney, that I wish to invoke my 5th amendment right, would that automatically put off limits anything that I might inadvertently utter, (as the defendant in this case), off limits? Would I have to state, for the record, that I waive my right, in order to make a statement? Things here just don't add up for some reason.

I foresee, in the near future, any and all defendant stating at the outset of any trip into arrest-land that he/she wishes to remain silent and be provided a lawyer during questioning. That should take care of that fro the criminal element side of things, how the law-enforcement community will react is anybodies guess.