Right to Silence Quotes

The innocent man is always eager to give his explanation and does so at the first opportunity, and it is always to his interest so to do. But the guilty is now enabled by the law to remain mute, to learn the evidence against him, to concoct his defense pending trial, and to come into court fully acquainted with the case against him, while the district attorney only knows that the defendant has pronounced the two words "not guilty.

Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.

I live in America. I have the right to write whatever I want. And it's equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people.

Freedom means the capability to say yes when yes is needed, to say no when no is needed, and sometimes to keep quiet when nothing is needed - to be silent, not to say anything. When all these dimensions are available, there is freedom.

[The defendant] has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to “Prove it!”

I don't have to prove my innocence to the court or to the news media.

The critical point is that the Constitution places the right of silence beyond the reach of government.

I've learned a long time ago if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be pleading the Fifth, and most Americans get it.

The privilege against self-incrimination is one of the great landmarks in man’s struggle to make himself civilized.

Compelled speech isn't worth much.

I answered their questions truthfully and honestly, but I would prefer not to say more. I assume the information was routed back and that is why I was not called to testify.

… the Civil Liberties Union was defending the right of Abramovitch to lie without interruption or heckling.

Publicly, defense lawyers cling to the text book theory that the defendant has no burden of proof and that no negative inference should ever be taken when a defendant doesn't defend himself on the witness stand.

Every intellectual who is called before one of the committees ought to refuse to testify.

Individuals have the right to pick and choose which expressions to condemn, which to praise and which to say nothing about. Governments, however, must remain neutral as to the content of expression. And governments must protect the rights of all to express even the most despicable of views.

Historically, I believe I was correct in refusing to answer their questions.

Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen.

The idea that the police cannot ask questions of the person that knows most about the crime is an infamous decision.

I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have the ability.

I don't see why it gives people the right to know about my private life if I don't want to talk about it.

The right of every person "to be let alone" must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate.

There's no law that says anybody has to do an interview.

Free speech includes the right to not speak.

It is not always easy to balance freedom of expression with the needs of the justice system.

I don't live a lie. You have to understand that people who choose not to discuss their personal lives are not living a lie. That is a presumption that people jump to.