Matter of Kamariana SS. (Anthony SS.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no Blakely-compliant admission occurred when both the defendant and defense counsel “stood silent” as the trial court made its finding on the aggravator
• “To presume, infer, or deem a fact admitted because the defendant has remained silent, however, is contrary to the Sixth Amendment.” (internal citations omitted)
• \[T]o presume an admission of an element of the crime from the failure to object would violate the well-established protections of the Sixth Amendment against presuming guilt or a finding of fact against the defendant.\
• \[T]o presume an admission of an element of the crime from the failure to object would violate the well-established protections of the Sixth Amendment against presuming guilt or a finding of fact against the defendant.\
• A If the defendant expressly waives his Sixth Amendment rights, consents to factfinding by the court, or admits the fact otherwise committed to the jury, the Sixth Amendment protections are avoided. @

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).