[KyJim]

Answer me this: Before this opinion, did I have a blanket, universal right to remain silent (except for identification, perhaps, as you mentioned) at all times and under all circumstances, without having that silence used against me?

The short answer is no. Look at how the Supreme Court framed the issue:

We granted certiorari, 568 U. S. ___ (2013), to resolve a division of authority in the lower courts over whether the prosecution may use a defendant's assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination during a noncustodial police interview as part of its case in chief. Compare, e.g., United States v. Rivera, 944 F. 2d 1563, 1568 (CA11 1991), with United States v. Moore, 104 F. 3d 377, 386 (CADC 1997). But because petitioner did not invoke the privilege during his interview, we find it unnecessary to reach that question.

So, when the court took it up, it thought the issue was whether the prosecutor could comment on a suspect's silence in a non-custodial setting and affirmatively invokes his or her right to remain silent. The lower courts were split on the issue. It turned out, however, that the suspect had not invoked his Fifth Amendment rights but simply declined to answer one or two questions. Since he did not affirmatively assert his right, he could not rely upon it to keep the prosecutor from commenting on his silence. The bigger question is whether the a prosecutor can comment on silence where the suspect specifically invokes the Fifth Amendment in a non-custodial setting. We don't know the answer to that.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. Historically, a defendant was expected to explain himself to a judicial official before trial and the judicial official could infer guilt from the defendant's failure to do so. He simply could not be compelled to testify at trial. And, to my knowledge, truly involuntary confessions have always been inadmissible; e.g., confessions obtained by torture.

Speedrrracer, you quoted me:

I thought this case was important, not because it was a huge change in the law, but because it very clearly makes a point that most people just don't understand. If you want to assert your Fifth Amendment right, you need to specifically assert the Fifth Amendment right and not just remain silent or "I have nothing to say."

Then asked,

Does anyone see the logical flaw here? Anyone getting why lawyers are screwing up our society?

You see a logical flaw because you don't understand the history. As noted above, the right was not always read as broadly as it is today. In addition, comment on the right is not allowed when a person has specifically relied upon the right. How do we know if someone has relied upon the right or not? We don't unless the suspect claims it.

It is indeed frustrating that our laws can seem so complicated. Yet, life is complicated. Since you're an engineer, think in terms of the Chaos Theory. While the overall effect of something may be quantified and predicted, the behavior of individual molecules cannot be predicted with absolute certainty. Individuals are the molecules and there are a multitude of factors which can influence those molecules and how they react. It is up to the law and the lawyers to use general rules and apply them to very specific and, perhaps, unique circumstances.


DanF said:

I have no confidence that I would be able to differentiate in a meaningful way whether I was "in custody", NOT "in custody", or somewhere in between . . .

The test is whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was free to leave. The easiest way of determining this is to ask if you are free to go. Life is seldom that simple, however.