# Miranda rights for the mute – right to remain silent? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 22, 2013, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388 "2013-04-22T07:20:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/1 "2013-04-22T07:20:27Z")
According to news reports, the (alleged) Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has suffered serious injuries to his throat and to his tongue. At least for the moment, he is unable to speak. A criminal suspect has “the right to remain silent”. But what about other forms of communication, like writing or sign language? Is “remain silent” to be taken literally or does this right extend to all forms of human communication? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/2 "2013-04-22T08:10:51Z")
Not all forms of communication. There have been unsuccessful attempts to claim some things are communication covered by the Miranda warning. Some people have claimed that things like fingerprints or DNA samples are information and you should be able to refuse to provide it because giving information is a form of communication. The courts have generally said “Ha ha. Nice try. No.” But I’m pretty sure written communication and sign language would be protected. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/3 "2013-04-22T13:52:00Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > what about other forms of communication, like writing … Police would get nowhere with an argument that “Hey, we allowed the suspect to remain silent - we simply told him he was required to give written answers to our questions without a lawyer present.” ---
**Author:** ![SpeedwayRyan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@SpeedwayRyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpeedwayRyan)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/4 "2013-04-22T14:36:49Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > A criminal suspect has “the right to remain silent”. As he is a US citizen, you would think that. But he [hasn’t been read his Miranda rights](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda-rights_n_3123992.html) last I heard. There is some shady stuff going on. The guy is an asshole and doesn’t deserve special treatment by any means, but he’s a US citizen who committed a crime. The fact that government officials can just “decide” that your crime is so heinous that you’re not entitled to due process is downright frightening. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/5 "2013-04-22T14:49:42Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > A criminal suspect has “the right to remain silent”. But what about other forms of communication, like writing or sign language? Is “remain silent” to be taken literally or does this right extend to all forms of human communication? That triggered a case in my head, quoting from (a) The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. Pp. 446 U. S. 298-302. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/6 "2013-04-22T14:50:59Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > A criminal suspect has “the right to remain silent”. But what about other forms of communication, like writing or sign language? Is “remain silent” to be taken literally or does this right extend to all forms of human communication? That triggered a case in my head, quoting from Rhode Island v. Innes; (a) The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. Pp. 446 U. S. 298-302. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/7 "2013-04-22T14:57:03Z")
One of my favorite quotes in an Andrew Vachss’s book, from _Flood_ Max the Silent (a character who knows all types of ways to sneak up on people and kill them, but who never speaks) has a reputation so well known, that when he was arraigned for attempted murder, nobody dared laugh when the judge said “You have the right to remain silent.” Everybody knows that Max never _attempted_ to kill anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/8 "2013-04-22T16:09:07Z")
> [@SpeedwayRyan](#): > > As he is a US citizen, you would think that. > > But he [hasn’t been read his Miranda rights](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda-rights_n_3123992.html) last I heard. > > There is some shady stuff going on. The guy is an asshole and doesn’t deserve special treatment by any means, but he’s a US citizen who committed a crime. The fact that government officials can just “decide” that your crime is so heinous that you’re not entitled to due process is downright frightening. It’s not shady. There’s an established public safety exemption to Miranda rights where the police can question a suspect about an existing danger (New York v. Quarles). ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/9 "2013-04-22T16:48:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s not shady. There’s an established public safety exemption to Miranda rights where the police can question a suspect about an existing danger (New York v. Quarles). Besides, the Miranda protections only cover _self_-incrimination. There is more than enough evidence to convict the alleged bomber _without_ relying on anything he might say. But, this way, he can answer questions about the plot without having a lawyer there telling him not to say anything. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/10 "2013-04-22T17:11:10Z")
> [@SpeedwayRyan](#): > > But he [hasn’t been read his Miranda rights](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda-rights_n_3123992.html) last I heard. Is he in a fit enough state to have them read to him? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/11 "2013-04-22T17:27:34Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Besides, the Miranda protections only cover _self_-incrimination. There is more than enough evidence to convict the alleged bomber _without_ relying on anything he might say. But, this way, he can answer questions about the plot without having a lawyer there telling him not to say anything. I don’t think that’s true. If a bomb goes off in public and I arrest somebody who I suspect was part of the plot and I ask him “Are there any other bombs out there?” and he says “Yes, there’s one three block over that’s going to go off in twenty minutes.” Then in court, the fact that he knew of that other bomb’s existence would be strong evidence of his involvement in the crime. But it would still admissible because my intent when I asked him the question was not to gather evidence against him. I was trying to protect the public by preventing further explosions. But later, when the bombs have been defused and the situation has been made safe, I can go back and now use his statement as evidence of his guilt. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/12 "2013-04-22T17:34:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t think that’s true. > > If a bomb goes off in public and I arrest somebody who I suspect was part of the plot and I ask him “Are there any other bombs out there?” and he says “Yes, there’s one three block over that’s going to go off in twenty minutes.” Then in court, the fact that he knew of that other bomb’s existence would be strong evidence of his involvement in the crime. > > But it would still admissible because my intent when I asked him the question was not to gather evidence against him. I was trying to protect the public by preventing further explosions. But later, when the bombs have been defused and the situation has been made safe, I can go back and now use his statement as evidence of his guilt. Correct. This is the “public safety exception” to Miranda. However, it’s debatable after 3 days, whether there is a continuing threat that justifies no Miranda warnings. However, the suspect still has the right to remain silent and has the right to an attorney; he just doesn’t have to be informed of these rights if the public safety exception is valid. If it isn’t valid, then he doesn’t get to go home because of a failure to read him his Miranda rights. The worst case is that nothing he says to the police may be used against him at trial. They already have enough evidence to put a needle in his arm without any subsequent statements. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/13 "2013-04-22T17:35:48Z")
Silent is meant in the broader sense, to not answer questions or make statements in any form. Current reports say the kid is nodding and writing and/or reading questions on paper. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/14 "2013-04-22T18:57:54Z")
> [@SpeedwayRyan](#): > > As he is a US citizen, you would think that. > > But he [hasn’t been read his Miranda rights](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda-rights_n_3123992.html) last I heard. > > There is some shady stuff going on. The guy is an asshole and doesn’t deserve special treatment by any means, but he’s a US citizen who committed a crime. The fact that government officials can just “decide” that your crime is so heinous that you’re not entitled to due process is downright frightening. There is a common misconception that you have to be read your Miranda rights when you are arrested. This is totally false. You only have to be read your Miranda rights if you are being questioned. And even then, you only have to be read your Miranda rights if the prosecutors want to use your statements in court. Cops routinely arrest people for drug possession and never mirandize them, because they never bother to interrogate them. They test the white powdery substance back at the lab, testify they found the baggie in the defendant’s pocket, and that’s the case. No need to inform the defendant that he has the right to remain silent if you don’t care about anything he has to say. I somehow doubt the case against this guy is going to depend on his confession. The only reason to question him is for intelligence purposes, not to build a case against him. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/miranda-rights-for-the-mute-right-to-remain-silent/656388/15 "2013-04-23T01:19:57Z")
The Miranda issue is moot now; he was read his rights at his arraignment today in front of a federal magistrate, who came to his hospital room for that purpose: [‘You can rouse him now’: The extraordinary scene of Boston Marathon bomber’s bedside arraignment, as he’s read his Miranda Rights and only says ‘no’ when asked if he can afford an attorney](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313216/Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-Boston-Marathon-bomb-suspect-read-Miranda-Rights-hospital-bed.html#ixzz2RFCjnwli) He apparently said “no” when asked if he could pay for a lawyer, and made head motions to answer other questions. The magistrate found that he was "… alert, mentally competent and lucid. He is aware of the nature of the proceedings. "