[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/blog\/object-protect-constitutional-rights-5th-amendment\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/blog\/object-protect-constitutional-rights-5th-amendment\/","headline":"Object to Protect Your Constitutional Rights, 5th Amendment","name":"Object to Protect Your Constitutional Rights, 5th Amendment","description":"In this recently decided case, United States v. Clark, Crim. App. No. 37499, the trial counsel argued that lack of responses from the Airman who was confronted by Special Agents about sending sexual messages to a minor constituted, in essence, his guilt. In this case, the Airman sent sexual messages and pictures to a 13 […]","datePublished":"2018-11-24","dateModified":"2025-04-24","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/blog\/author\/greenberglawoffices\/#Person","name":"Greenberg Law Offices","url":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/blog\/author\/greenberglawoffices\/","identifier":7,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0d600bf0d0a422eeda2a75c9d4b0240b93a50067ae011d1484f7dfed7467653?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e0d600bf0d0a422eeda2a75c9d4b0240b93a50067ae011d1484f7dfed7467653?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Greenberg Law Offices","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/greenberg-logo.png","url":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/greenberg-logo.png","width":301,"height":94}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Founder-Henry-I.-Greenberg-with-attorney-Larry.jpg","url":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Founder-Henry-I.-Greenberg-with-attorney-Larry.jpg","width":790,"height":787},"url":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/blog\/object-protect-constitutional-rights-5th-amendment\/","about":["Criminal Defense"],"wordCount":423,"articleBody":"In this recently decided case, United States v. Clark, Crim. App. No. 37499, the trial counsel argued that lack of responses from the Airman who was confronted by Special Agents about sending sexual messages to a minor constituted, in essence, his guilt. In this case, the Airman sent sexual messages and pictures to a 13 years old girl who was an undercover agent. When confronted by Special Agents, the Airman didn\u2019t say anything, looked down, \u2018shoulders slumped and his head dropped; chin to chest.\u2019 The trial repeatedly pointed out to a panel in his opening statement, on direct examination, and also in his closing argument that the non-verbal responses meant that the accused made expressions of guilt. The defense counsel objected, only once, during the rebuttal, but the military judge overruled the objection.M.R.E. 304(h)(3) states: A person\u2019s failure to deny an accusation of wrongdoing concerning an offense for which at the time of the alleged failure the person was under official investigation or was in confinement, arrest, or custody does not support an inference of an admission of the truth of the accusation.On appeal, the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that the 5th Amendment, right against self-incrimination and M.R.E. 304 protect against improper comments by prosecution. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 32-34 (1988) the trial counsel is prohibited from \u201c\u2018treat[ing] the defendant\u2019s silence as substantive evidence of guilt.\u2019\u201dIn this case, the Court concluded that the trial counsel violated the accused\u2019s Constitutional rights, but that the violation was harmless due to substantial evidence against the accused. The prosecution matched the accused\u2019s laptop to the messages, the accused waived his rights and made a sworn statement, and admitted to believing that the person he sent the messages to 13 years old. The entire defense case rested on the statement that the accused said that he suspected that the person he was sending messages to was a cop.A\u00a0military defense lawyer Fort Hood\u00a0offers has the prerequisite training and experience to thoroughly investigate each case, develop facts to explain what really happened, and object to protect their clients\u2019 Constitutional rights when it is consistent with a theory of a particular case. Had the defense case been more developed, and there was no substantial evidence against the accused, the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals would most likely hold that the violation was not harmless and that the conviction should have been overturned."},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Blog","item":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/blog\/#breadcrumbitem"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Object to Protect Your Constitutional Rights, 5th Amendment","item":"https:\/\/greenberglawyers.com\/blog\/object-protect-constitutional-rights-5th-amendment\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]