The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that courts may, in rare cases, convict a suspect on the basis of a confession alone, if the suspect confessed during police questioning but then chose to exercise the right to remain silent during trial.

The ruling essentially limits the effectiveness of a suspect exercising the right to remain silent during criminal proceedings.

Prior to the ruling, it was not possible to use a defendant's silence in court as "additional proof" of guilt, when accompanied by a prior confession.

	Advertisement

The justices were split, however, on the question of how often a defendant's silence in court could justifiably be used as corroborating evidence.

In the majority opinion, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak and Justice Edna Arbel specified three necessary criteria for securing a conviction in such circumstances.

First, the confession must gave a high level of credibility in the eyes of the police, based on it being logical and containing elements of truth.

Second, it must be confirmed that the suspect has not given a false confession due to pressure from external sources, for example if they were involved in organized crime or it is thought that they are taking responsibility for the actions of a member of their family.

Finally, there must be no evidence that the silence of the accused in court is due to external pressures or intimidation.