Two men were arrested while riding in a stolen automobile. They were taken to the police station, booked, and fingerprinted. They were then taken to an interrogation room. After the detective gave them their Miranda warnings, one of the men said, "Forget it. As soon as you check for outstanding warrants, you'll find out that I escaped from prison. Since I am going back anyway, it's a farce to deny that we stole that car." The other man said nothing, and the first man proceeded to write and sign a full confes sion. The man who remained silent pled not guilty to the charge of grand theft auto. At his trial the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence to show that he did not deny that he stole the automobile when the other man told the police in front of him that he was a party to the theft. Should the court hold that this evidence is proper?
A、Yes, because silence in this situation is indicative of guilt and is an implied admis sion.
B、(B)Yes, because the man who confessed had voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.
C、(C)No, because an accomplice's evidence is inherently unreliable and unduly prejudi cial.
D、(D)No, because under this circumstance, the man who remained silent had no duty or responsibility to deny the allegation.
发布时间:2025-09-02 01:35:35