FL Supreme Court OKs stricter sentences if defendants exercise right against self-incrimination

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

[MarkD]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Is that because any government policy you blatantly disagree with is blatantly unconstitutional?

I don't yet know whether it is unconstitutional or not, but I would like to know what leads you to the conclusion that it is.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Is that because any government policy you blatantly disagree with is blatantly unconstitutional?

I don't yet know whether it is unconstitutional or not, but I would like to know what leads you to the conclusion that it is.

"You see, you have this 5th amendment right that protects you from self-incrimination...BUT if you ever utilize that constitutional right, it'll be held against you and we'll punish you for using it."

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093
This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Is that because any government policy you blatantly disagree with is blatantly unconstitutional?

I don't yet know whether it is unconstitutional or not, but I would like to know what leads you to the conclusion that it is.

I'm baffled how you couldn't think this unconstitutional.

'Constitutional Conservative' is an oxymoron at this point.

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Is that because any government policy you blatantly disagree with is blatantly unconstitutional?

I don't yet know whether it is unconstitutional or not, but I would like to know what leads you to the conclusion that it is.

It seems pretty apparent to me that somebody exercising their constitutional right in a court of law should not have that against them when they are sentenced.

[MarkD]

Did any of you people who are jumping on me (after I said I did not know yet whether it was unconstitutional or not - a statement I posted before I read the Court's opinion and was only based on the fact of what Ferguson97 said), read the Florida Supreme Court's majority and dissenting opinions? They're available in the tweet by MJ Stern. I just read the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions and I am satisfied that the majority did nothing wrong.

It is a stupid oversimplification to claim that the courts of Florida are punishing someone just for "exercising their right against self-incrimination." Defendant Davis was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, he pled not guilty, the jury convicted him, and during the sentencing phase of the trial, the defendant spoke to the judge, in which he still insisted that he was innocent, and that the jury made an "injust" [sic] mistake. The Florida trial court judge said he didn't believe in the defendant's innocence, imposed the maximum punishment allowed by statute, and said, when pronouncing the sentence, that one reason he was imposing the maximum was because the defendant did not accept responsibility for what he had done. We're not talking here about some version of a Hate Crime statute that imposes ADDITIONAL punishment on someone because they said something hateful right before they committed a crime (i.e., the maximum punishment for assault is 7 years in jail, but if the assault were perpetrated because of hate, an additional sentence of 2 more years will be tacked on). The issue here is may a trial court judge, choosing to impose a sentence that is within the range of permissible sentences authorized by statute, choose the maximum sentence because the defendant showed no remorse for what he was convicted of doing? May a trial court judge, announcing the sentence that is being imposed on a convicted person, say, "you still fail to take responsibility for your actions," and that one out of four reasons for imposing the maximum sentence is "your failure to take any responsibility," impose the maximum sentence?

[Nyvin]

Did any of you people who are jumping on me (after I said I did not know yet whether it was unconstitutional or not - a statement I posted before I read the Court's opinion and was only based on the fact of what Ferguson97 said), read the Florida Supreme Court's majority and dissenting opinions? They're available in the tweet by MJ Stern. I just read the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions and I am satisfied that the majority did nothing wrong.

It is a stupid oversimplification to claim that the courts of Florida are punishing someone just for "exercising their right against self-incrimination." Defendant Davis was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, he pled not guilty, the jury convicted him, and during the sentencing phase of the trial, the defendant spoke to the judge, during which he still insisted that he was innocent, and that the jury made an "injust" [sic] mistake. The Florida trial court judge said he didn't believe in the defendant's innocence, imposed the maximum punishment allowed by statute, and said, when pronouncing the sentence, that one reason he was imposing the maximum was because the defendant did not accept responsibility for what he had done. We're not talking here about some version of a Hate Crime statute that imposes ADDITIONAL punishment on someone because they said something hateful right before they committed a crime. The issue here is may a trial court judge, choosing to impose a sentence that is within the range of permissible sentences authorized by statute, choose the maximum sentence because the defendant showed no remorse for what he was convicted of doing? May a trial court judge, announcing the sentence that is being imposing on a convicted person, say, "you still fail to take responsibility for your actions," and that one out of four reasons for imposing the maximum sentence is "your failure to take any responsibility," impose the maximum sentence?

“I did nothing wrong, I’m innocent of any crime”

“You’re not showing remorse, you get a stricter punishment.”

[Benjamin Frank]

Did any of you people who are jumping on me (after I said I did not know yet whether it was unconstitutional or not - a statement I posted before I read the Court's opinion and was only based on the fact of what Ferguson97 said), read the Florida Supreme Court's majority and dissenting opinions? They're available in the tweet by MJ Stern. I just read the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions and I am satisfied that the majority did nothing wrong.

It is a stupid oversimplification to claim that the courts of Florida are punishing someone just for "exercising their right against self-incrimination." Defendant Davis was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, he pled not guilty, the jury convicted him, and during the sentencing phase of the trial, the defendant spoke to the judge, during which he still insisted that he was innocent, and that the jury made an "injust" [sic] mistake. The Florida trial court judge said he didn't believe in the defendant's innocence, imposed the maximum punishment allowed by statute, and said, when pronouncing the sentence, that one reason he was imposing the maximum was because the defendant did not accept responsibility for what he had done. We're not talking here about some version of a Hate Crime statute that imposes ADDITIONAL punishment on someone because they said something hateful right before they committed a crime. The issue here is may a trial court judge, choosing to impose a sentence that is within the range of permissible sentences authorized by statute, choose the maximum sentence because the defendant showed no remorse for what he was convicted of doing? May a trial court judge, announcing the sentence that is being imposing on a convicted person, say, "you still fail to take responsibility for your actions," and that one out of four reasons for imposing the maximum sentence is "your failure to take any responsibility," impose the maximum sentence?

In that context, this sounds no different than (going the other way) of  QAnon Shaman who was given the most lenient sentence after pleading guilty and expressing remorse. Certainly there is nothing unusual in this in the penalty phase.

This is something I've wondered about when a person maintains their innocence and accordingly shows no remorse not just during sentencing but also during parole/probation hearings. However, once the person has been found guilty, it makes sense to me that a judge is going to assume that the person is guilty and so will sentence accordingly and will not show any leniency when the person maintains their innocence.  I'm not sure what else a judge could do in these situations.

[SteveRogers]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

[Nyvin]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

[emailking]

Isn't a judge sometimes giving a lighter sentence when remorse is expressed, as is common, the same thing in disguise?

[SteveRogers]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

No, the 5th Amendment right is invoked when you don’t talk. If the police show up at your house and ask you about a crime, and you say, “I have nothing to say. I want my lawyer,” that’s your Fifth amendment right. But if the police show up to talk to you, and you say, “I’m innocent. I had nothing to do with it,” and you’re lying, that’s a false statement to the police and it absolutely can be held against you.

We agree that if a person is found guilty, and then asks for forgiveness at sentencing and shows legitimate regret for what they’ve done, the judge should be able to take that into consideration and potentially give them a lesser sentence, right?

Why shouldn’t the opposite be true? If the defendant chooses to speak up at their sentencing (as opposed to sitting quiet and letting their attorney make the argument for leniency and/or get to work on the appeal) and they rail against the system and curse at the judge and rant and rave that the jury were a bunch of idiots who got it wrong, they shouldn’t expect that to win them any points when it comes to sentencing.

[Big Abraham]

Defendant: "I plead the fifth"
Judge: "The wall just got ten feet taller."

[SteveRogers]

Defendant: "I plead the fifth"
Judge: "The wall just got ten feet taller."

See, that would be unconstitutional. It also has little to do with what the OP’s case is about.

[Nyvin]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

No, the 5th Amendment right is invoked when you don’t talk. If the police show up at your house and ask you about a crime, and you say, “I have nothing to say. I want my lawyer,” that’s your Fifth amendment right. But if the police show up to talk to you, and you say, “I’m innocent. I had nothing to do with it,” and you’re lying, that’s a false statement to the police and it absolutely can be held against you.

We agree that if a person is found guilty, and then asks for forgiveness at sentencing and shows legitimate regret for what they’ve done, the judge should be able to take that into consideration and potentially give them a lesser sentence, right?

Why shouldn’t the opposite be true? If the defendant chooses to speak up at their sentencing (as opposed to sitting quiet and letting their attorney make the argument for leniency and/or get to work on the appeal) and they rail against the system and curse at the judge and rant and rave that the jury were a bunch of idiots who got it wrong, they shouldn’t expect that to win them any points when it comes to sentencing.

No, the opposite shouldn't be true.  There cannot be any punishment for not admitting guilt,  that is coercion for self incrimination and is the basis for the 5th amendment.   

There really isn't anyway to weasel out of this...if the justice system uses any method to pressure the person to self incriminate then that is a 5th amendment violation.

[SteveRogers]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

No, the 5th Amendment right is invoked when you don’t talk. If the police show up at your house and ask you about a crime, and you say, “I have nothing to say. I want my lawyer,” that’s your Fifth amendment right. But if the police show up to talk to you, and you say, “I’m innocent. I had nothing to do with it,” and you’re lying, that’s a false statement to the police and it absolutely can be held against you.

We agree that if a person is found guilty, and then asks for forgiveness at sentencing and shows legitimate regret for what they’ve done, the judge should be able to take that into consideration and potentially give them a lesser sentence, right?

Why shouldn’t the opposite be true? If the defendant chooses to speak up at their sentencing (as opposed to sitting quiet and letting their attorney make the argument for leniency and/or get to work on the appeal) and they rail against the system and curse at the judge and rant and rave that the jury were a bunch of idiots who got it wrong, they shouldn’t expect that to win them any points when it comes to sentencing.

No, the opposite shouldn't be true.  There cannot be any punishment for not admitting guilt,  that is coercion for self incrimination and is the basis for the 5th amendment.   

There really isn't anyway to weasel out of this...if the justice system uses any method to pressure the person to self incriminate then that is a 5th amendment violation.

Who pressured the defendant in this case to self incriminate? I think you may be missing the fact that defendants don’t need to say anything at their sentencing.

[Nyvin]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

No, the 5th Amendment right is invoked when you don’t talk. If the police show up at your house and ask you about a crime, and you say, “I have nothing to say. I want my lawyer,” that’s your Fifth amendment right. But if the police show up to talk to you, and you say, “I’m innocent. I had nothing to do with it,” and you’re lying, that’s a false statement to the police and it absolutely can be held against you.

We agree that if a person is found guilty, and then asks for forgiveness at sentencing and shows legitimate regret for what they’ve done, the judge should be able to take that into consideration and potentially give them a lesser sentence, right?

Why shouldn’t the opposite be true? If the defendant chooses to speak up at their sentencing (as opposed to sitting quiet and letting their attorney make the argument for leniency and/or get to work on the appeal) and they rail against the system and curse at the judge and rant and rave that the jury were a bunch of idiots who got it wrong, they shouldn’t expect that to win them any points when it comes to sentencing.

No, the opposite shouldn't be true.  There cannot be any punishment for not admitting guilt,  that is coercion for self incrimination and is the basis for the 5th amendment.  

There really isn't anyway to weasel out of this...if the justice system uses any method to pressure the person to self incriminate then that is a 5th amendment violation.

Who pressured the defendant in this case to self incriminate? I think you may be missing the fact that defendants don’t need to say anything at their sentencing.

may be punished with higher sentences due to "lack of remorse."

[SteveRogers]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

No, the 5th Amendment right is invoked when you don’t talk. If the police show up at your house and ask you about a crime, and you say, “I have nothing to say. I want my lawyer,” that’s your Fifth amendment right. But if the police show up to talk to you, and you say, “I’m innocent. I had nothing to do with it,” and you’re lying, that’s a false statement to the police and it absolutely can be held against you.

We agree that if a person is found guilty, and then asks for forgiveness at sentencing and shows legitimate regret for what they’ve done, the judge should be able to take that into consideration and potentially give them a lesser sentence, right?

Why shouldn’t the opposite be true? If the defendant chooses to speak up at their sentencing (as opposed to sitting quiet and letting their attorney make the argument for leniency and/or get to work on the appeal) and they rail against the system and curse at the judge and rant and rave that the jury were a bunch of idiots who got it wrong, they shouldn’t expect that to win them any points when it comes to sentencing.

No, the opposite shouldn't be true.  There cannot be any punishment for not admitting guilt,  that is coercion for self incrimination and is the basis for the 5th amendment.  

There really isn't anyway to weasel out of this...if the justice system uses any method to pressure the person to self incriminate then that is a 5th amendment violation.

Who pressured the defendant in this case to self incriminate? I think you may be missing the fact that defendants don’t need to say anything at their sentencing.

may be punished with higher sentences due to "lack of remorse."

Back to my original point, you’re quoting a tweet, not the court opinion.

[John Dule]

This is an absurd misrepresentation of the ruling and any red avatars pushing this lie should be moderated for spreading misinformation. I am so tired of reading these sensationalist thread titles only to read the actual facts and discover that they are nothing like what was claimed. We need to start putting our feet down on this stuff.

[SteveRogers]

For anyone curious about what actually happened in this case, here’s a snippet:

And the fact that Davis maintained his innocence and the trial
court observed that he failed to take responsibility for his actions did not result in the trial court “preclud[ing] consideration” of other relevant sentencing factors, particularly because Davis did not offer any. During his allocution, Davis discussed only his innocence. He
 - 14 -

offered no other reasons to the court why a sentence less than the maximum should be imposed. The trial judge therefore had no opportunity to “preclude consideration” of other matters offered by Davis that might have been relevant to the sentence. Indeed, Davis specifically told the trial court that he was not asking for leniency because he did nothing wrong. (“If I did anything wrong, or said anything that’s inappropriate, I would apologize. Right now, and I ask -- I would be asking for leniency, but I did nothing wrong. I am not guilty of the charge that I’m accused of. I am innocent.”) Instead, he accused multiple parties of misconduct, blamed the driver of the car, the police, his lawyer, and the trial court, repeatedly attempted to explain his interpretations of the law to the judge, and asked the judge to consider evidence that was not introduced at the trial.
The lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code, in accordance with Davis’s sentencing scoresheet, was 118.125 months (approximately nine years and ten months) and the statutory maximum sentence was fifteen years. The State requested that the court impose the maximum sentence because of Davis’s numerous previous convictions and violent
- 15 -

history, while defense counsel urged the court to impose the lowest permissible sentence per the scoresheet. The law therefore provided the trial judge with a range from approximately ten to fifteen years to which he could sentence Davis. In fashioning the sentence, the trial court considered that Davis had “an extensive violent history here and a lot of it involves a firearm,” including, “a second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, attempted armed robbery with a firearm, armed robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, discharging a firearm on school property, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, battery on a law enforcement officer, felony battery.” The court categorized this as “a violent, unfortunate history that we’re dealing with” and noted that the offense for which Davis was to be sentenced also involved a firearm.
The trial judge had numerous valid reasons for imposing the maximum sentence here, but, as stated previously, he did not need to articulate any reason. The judge was statutorily authorized to impose a sentence up to fifteen years based solely on the fact of the conviction, regardless of any sentencing considerations and whether or not Davis took responsibility for his actions. “The
- 16 -

conviction alone was enough to justify the sentence. No ‘aggravator’ or additional findings were necessary.” Davis, 268 So. 3d at 965- 66. The Supreme Court has long recognized that due process permits “a sentencing judge [to] exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fixed by law.” Williams, 337 U.S. at 246. The Court has “never [called into] doubt[] the authority of a judge to exercise broad discretion in imposing a sentence within a statutory range.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005). Whether a defendant says nothing at sentencing or takes full responsibility and is able to show that he is a pillar of the community, a judge retains the discretion to impose the maximum sentence.
Further, while a defendant does have the right to maintain his innocence by pleading not guilty and going to trial, and the right to remain silent, Davis chose to voluntarily allocute at his sentencing and thus waived his right to remain silent. And because Davis waived the right to maintain his silence, the trial court did not violate Davis’s right to due process by considering the words that Davis voluntarily offered in imposing a sentence. “Just as a jury
- 17 -

weighs a defendant’s testimony once he waives his Fifth Amendment privilege at trial, a judge may consider a defendant’s freely offered allocution . . . during sentencing.” United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 652 (11th Cir. 2014). This is true even if those words are detrimental to the defendant.
Nor was Davis forced to choose between allocution and maintenance of his innocence; he certainly could have allocuted without voicing his disagreement with the verdict, blaming the driver, the police, his lawyer, and the trial court for his conviction, and attempting to explain his personal interpretations of the law to the judge. He could have asked for leniency without admitting his guilt. He could have provided the judge with reasons to impose a sentence less than the maximum besides his claimed innocence. But he instead chose to make a lengthy statement claiming innocence, denying responsibility, and placing blame for his conviction on the alleged misconduct of others. The trial court was under no obligation to ignore such statements and did not err in considering those statements in imposing the legal sentence here. “

• ur system need not treat as equals an unrepentant convict and

- 18 -

one who shows remorse.” United States v. McClain, 2 F.3d 205, 207 (7th Cir. 1993).4

[Badger]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

No, the 5th Amendment right is invoked when you don’t talk. If the police show up at your house and ask you about a crime, and you say, “I have nothing to say. I want my lawyer,” that’s your Fifth amendment right. But if the police show up to talk to you, and you say, “I’m innocent. I had nothing to do with it,” and you’re lying, that’s a false statement to the police and it absolutely can be held against you.

We agree that if a person is found guilty, and then asks for forgiveness at sentencing and shows legitimate regret for what they’ve done, the judge should be able to take that into consideration and potentially give them a lesser sentence, right?

Why shouldn’t the opposite be true? If the defendant chooses to speak up at their sentencing (as opposed to sitting quiet and letting their attorney make the argument for leniency and/or get to work on the appeal) and they rail against the system and curse at the judge and rant and rave that the jury were a bunch of idiots who got it wrong, they shouldn’t expect that to win them any points when it comes to sentencing.

 I agree with this sentiment. However , if it's not that simple, I would like to see what the descent had to write. Personally I can't  Download the link to the decision

 From what little I can gather it sounds like it had to do with specific nuances of Florida law that lack of lack of remorse is not a factor which the Florida sentencing statute  Explicitly authorizes to be used in some score sheet calculation for determining sentencing. Again karma can't comment without having read the decision, but it sounds like it was war a Florida sensing statute this year than a 5th amendment non incrimination cause issue, and some Twitter bot jacked it up As click bait

[Ferguson97]

This is an absurd misrepresentation of the ruling and any red avatars pushing this lie should be moderated for spreading misinformation. I am so tired of reading these sensationalist thread titles only to read the actual facts and discover that they are nothing like what was claimed. We need to start putting our feet down on this stuff.

The dissent articulates this better:

Accepting responsibility is an admission of guilt and punishing someone for the failure to admit guilt is a violation of due process and the right against self-incrimination.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If I’m framed for a crime, or otherwise falsely accused or something, do I then have to lie to the judge to get a better sentence? What if I do, but then exculpatory evidence comes out, will the prosecutor say “well Your Honor, he admitted guilt during sentencing”?

[John Dule]

This is an absurd misrepresentation of the ruling and any red avatars pushing this lie should be moderated for spreading misinformation. I am so tired of reading these sensationalist thread titles only to read the actual facts and discover that they are nothing like what was claimed. We need to start putting our feet down on this stuff.

The dissent articulates this better:

Accepting responsibility is an admission of guilt and punishing someone for the failure to admit guilt is a violation of due process and the right against self-incrimination.

It is deliberately misleading to imply (as the thread title does) that this establishes a new standard for self-incrimination. Lenient sentences for remorse are not a new judicial innovation (and by the same token, harsher sentences for lack of remorse are not either). You are free to argue against judicial discretion, but this thread title implies that (1) This is endemic to Florida, (2) This applies to the entire judicial process and not just post-verdict sentencing, and (3) This is somehow connected to other state overreach stories we've been hearing out of the DeSantis administration. All three of these implications are wrong, and representing the case this way is irresponsible and deliberately misleading.

[pbrower2a]

Intensifying the sentence for assertion of the Fifth Amendment Right is a serious threat to the Bill of Rights. Many defendants are well advised to not waive the right to remain silent. Were I a defense attorney I would be leery of putting a defendant on the witness stand.  If the prosecution is already convinced of a defendant's guilt, then that will do no good. Trying to get mitigation? That might be a suitable exception.

It is better to grill a witness on something such as reliability of identification than to depend upon a defendant's ability to convince a jury. The defendant is usually in no position in which to  negate testimony of a witness or to disparage evidence.