I've just finished reading the U.S. v. Frazier decision, mentioned below, and it doesn't seem very good. The reasoning for the Fifth Amendment issue, allowing silence as evidence of guilt in some situations, seems pretty shaky. Now, I haven't been at this whole law thing too terribly long and it may be mighty presumptuous of me to criticise the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but I'm going to do it anyway.
The argument seems to be, essentially, that the silence of a suspect cannot be used as evidence of guilt either post-Miranda or when under an "official compulsion to speak." 2005 WL 30486, 6 (8th Cir.) The court went on to say that even though Frazier was under arrest at the time in question (and had not been Mirandized), he was under no compulsion to speak. The court states that "an arrest by itself is not governmental action that induces the defendant to remain silent." Id.
The problem I see (and this is not limited to this opinion - there was precedent in support of this construction) is that for anybody who happens to know his rights, the logical thing to do when arrested, whether Mirandized or not, would be to clam up. Generally there's an assumption that if a suspect is Mirandized that he doesn't know his rights and should thus have more protection under the law in order to guarantee those rights.
In this case, however, the assumption that the defendant did not know his rights is being sort of turned on his head. In effect, it is a punishment for those who do, in fact, know their rights. So clearly I see a problem there.
But that's not all. There's another major problem. The court goes on to say that regardless of what their decision about the Fifth Amendment issue, it doesn't matter because it didn't make a difference in the resolution of the case. What I get out of that (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that their entire discussion is irrelevant to the resolution of the case, and is therefore dictum.
My (newly gained, and quite probably incomplete) understanding is that generally courts avoid deciding constitutional issues unless they have to. It seems like this court went out of their way to decide a rather important one, but then went on to say that regardless, it didn't matter. This seems like more than just an issue with the Fifth Amendment, it seems like a poorly-written opinion.
Of course I welcome anyone who is willing to tell me how wrong I am, but please tell my why, as well.
