Lawyer David Serna: What is the Constitutional Right to Remain Silent?

Although the statement “right to remain silent” is famous on police television shows and movies, lawyer David Serna believes that not many fully understand their right that the saying represents. He also believes that as one of the constitutional rights, people need to know and completely understand what this right means to them, especially when the state accuses them of a crime.

 

What is the constitutional right to remain silent?

An individual, under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, has guaranteed protection against being compelled by law enforcement officers to give testimony that could incriminate them. However, criminal defense lawyer David Serna reminds the defense that the right to remain silent does not apply at all times.

 

Are there exceptions to this rule?

There is no simple answer to whether an individual should talk to the police and answer their questions. But lawyer David Serna suggests that civilians should always remember the general rule that no one can compel them to answer questions asked by officers. However, there are exceptions, like when the police officer caught the person committing a crime or has reason to believe they did or will commit one. Lawyer David Serna also believes it is vital to note that even non-verbal communication can be incriminating in some situations.

 

How do you apply the right to remain silent?

Lawyer David Serna believes it is essential for defendants always to remember that they can impose their right to remain silent even at trial. Defense lawyers have to make their clients fully understand this constitutional right to help their case. The defendant has sole discretion over whether they wish to testify at trial. Prosecutors cannot compel them to stand witness at their trial and comment if the defendant decides not to do so.

 

If you need any legal assistance, criminal defense lawyer David Serna is available for consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. You can reach him via email, telephone, video conferencing, and in-person visits under strict disinfecting protocol and mask requirements.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Impeaching a Witness Based on Inconsistencies

One way to undermine the evidence of an opponent is to impeach his or her witnesses based on inconsistencies in his or her testimony. Lawyers are always advised to listen during the direct and cross-examination because this is the perfect time to observe the testimony and behavior of the witnesses of their opponent. David Serna, a lawyer of over 40 years, offers helpful tips to both new and experienced lawyers. Today, he discusses prior statements of witnesses governed by the Federal Rules on Evidence 613. Discrepancies in testimonies are expected when several witnesses are testifying to the same incident. It is but natural that these individuals remember the details of the incident differently.   However, lawyers should consider only those errors and testimonial inconsistencies that are significant and deserving of the jury’s attention. Persistently bringing up minor inconsistencies will only waste the time of the court and will most likely annoy the jury. FRE 613 prov...
Read more

Cross-Examination of a Crash Reconstructionist

Crash reconstruction is a science that involves mathematics and physics to determine what happened before, during, and after a collision. Reconstruction witnesses testify about the details of a collision, such as the speed of a vehicle, the cause of a collision, and the motion of the vehicle before and after an impact. David Serna, a lawyer of over 40 years, advises young prosecutors in preparing for the cross-examination of defense reconstruction witnesses. The prosecutor must know whether the evidence or data gathered and used by the witness supports a reliable conclusion. Here are three things to remember before conducting a cross-examination of reconstruction witnesses. 1.        Review the crash report It is important to read the crash report of the opponent’s expert crash reconstructionist. The prosecutor’s crash reconstructionist can help him understand the factors considered by the opponent’s reconstruction witness and determine the shor...
Read more

The Rules on Preliminary Hearing and Trial

Preliminary Hearings take place before a judge and only after the prosecutor has filed charges against a person. These hearings are not trials, which may be conducted before a group of individuals, called a grand jury. There are, however, procedural rules on trial that similarly apply to preliminary hearings. In this brief article, David Serna, a lawyer and educator for many years, discusses some of the rules that apply to preliminary hearings and trials. Like a trial, an ordinary witness can testify during a preliminary hearing. Generally, the testimony must be based on what they perceive and not on opinion. However, during a preliminary hearing, unlike a trial, hearsay evidence is allowed and admissible. Three things can happen after a preliminary hearing. If the charges are weak and unfounded, the judge would most likely dismiss the case outright. If there is, however, a finding of probable cause, the judge may either reduce or retain the charges made by the prosecutor...
Read more