If You Want To Remain Silent, You Can't Remain Silent!

Almost every American citizen knows that among our many rights are the right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment) and the right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment). In the recent United States Supreme Court case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470 (JUNE 1, 2010), the Court held that the right to remain silent must be affirmatively and unequivocally invoked by the suspect. In the Thompkins case, the suspect had been arrested in relation to a homicide. Officers questioned the suspect over a three-hour period during which he was almost completely silent. Toward the end of the three-hour period, the officers asked if he wanted forgiveness for the death, to which he responded “yes.” The Supreme Court by a 5-4 margin held that the police interrogation was permissible and the incriminating statement was admissible evidence.

The Court held that he failed to unambiguously and unequivocally assert his right to remain silent. Apparently, his three hours of silence in response to relentless questioning was insufficient to show his intentions. In other words, he could not just remain silent, but had to affirmatively tell the officers that he wanted to remain silent and did not want to answer their questions.

This is another in a line of recent cases from the Court favoring law enforcement over the rights of the individual suspect. If you are ever in the unfortunate position of being a criminal suspect, remember to tell the officers loud and clear that you invoke your right to remain silent, and that you want your lawyer immediately.

Stephen Lawler, Esq.
http://www.thelawlerfirm.com

Florida Slip And Fall Cases: New Burden Of Proof

Until recently, slip and fall law in Florida was somewhat favorable to injured plaintiffs. In the case of Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, 802 So.2d 315 (2001), the Florida Supreme Court set the previous standard for proving slip and fall accidents involving transitory substances on floors. The rule stated by the Owens Court was that “the existence of a foreign substance on the floor of a business premises that causes a customer to fall and be injured is not a safe condition and the existence of that unsafe condition creates a rebuttable presumption that the premises owner did not maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.” This effectively eliminated the need for a plaintiff to show that the property owner was aware that the substance was on the floor and failed to clean it up.

This is about to change. Governor Christ recently signed HB 689, which becomes effective July 1, 2010 as Florida Statute 768.0755. The new statute effectively overturns the Owens decision. Now an injured plaintiff will have to prove that something was on the floor that caused the fall, and that the property owner knew or should have known it was there and failed to take the necessary action to clean it up. This is certainly a much higher burden for slip and fall victims.

Although the law becomes effective July 1, 2010, there is some question as to whether it will impact injuries that occurred before the effective date of the law. In most situations, laws may only operate prospectively to affect incidents that occur after the effective date. There are, however, many instances when a law can directly impact cases arising before the law if effective. Certainly defense attorneys hired by the property owners will argue that the new law should be applied to cases filed after July 1, even if the fall was much earlier. These issues require careful analysis of complex areas of the law. If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident, but have not yet filed suit, you should speak with an experienced personal attorney to determine how the new law will affect your case.

Stephen Lawler, Esq.
http://www.thelawlerfirm.com