| Litigants: | Salinas v. Texas |
| Arguedate: | 17 April |
| Argueyear: | 2013 |
| Decidedate: | 17 June |
| Decideyear: | 2013 |
| Fullname: | Genovivo Salinas v. State of Texas |
| Usvol: | 570 |
| Uspage: | 176 |
| Parallelcitations: | 133 S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 186 L.Ed. 376, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4697 (2013) |
| Docket: | 12-246 |
| Oralargument: | https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts6/oral_argument_audio/21648 |
| Opinionannouncement: | https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts6/opinion_announcement_audio/22689 |
| Prior: | Judgement for the defendant, 368 S.W. 3d 550, 557-559 (2011); Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Questionspresented: | Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights? |
| Holding: | Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during questioning. |
| Majority: | Alito |
| Joinmajority: | Roberts, Kennedy |
| Concurrence: | Thomas |
| Joinconcurrence: | Scalia |
| Dissent: | Breyer |
| Joindissent: | Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amends. V |
| Citation: | 570 U.S. 178 (2013) |
Salinas v. Texas, 570 US 178 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which the court held 5-4 decision, declaring that the Fifth amendment's self-incrimination clause does not extend to defendants who simply choose to remain silent during questioning, even though no arrest has been made nor the Miranda rights read to a defendant.[1] [2] [3]
In 1992, in Houston, Texas, Houston police officers found two homicide victims. The investigation led officers to Genovivo Salinas. Even though he was not arrested at that time and the police had not read him his Miranda rights, Salinas agreed to accompany the police officers to the police station. During the interrogation, Salinas answered every question the police officers asked him, until asked whether the shotgun shells found at the scene would match the gun found at Salinas' home. According to the police officer, Salinas didn't answer this question, and demonstrated signs of deception.[4] A ballistics analysis later revealed that the gun found at the scene matched Salinas' gun with the casings. Police also found a witness who said Salinas had admitted to the killings.
In 1993, Salinas was charged with the murders but was never found. 15 years later, he was found in Mexico and captured. His first trial resulted in a mistrial. In the second trial, Salinas does not take the stand and the prosecutor attempted to introduce Salinas' silence and defendant's physical reaction as evidence about the gun casings.[5] [6] [7] However, Salinas disagreed with the prosecutor and argued that he could still invoke Fifth Amendment rights as a protection against self-incrimination whether he was in custody or not.[8] The trial court agreed with the evidence and found Salinas guilty of the murders. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and a fine of $5,000. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Harris County, Texas affirmed the decision.[9] However, the case was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States and it was granted on January 11, 2013.[10] [11] [12]
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and Fourteenth Court of Appeals justified their decision by rejecting that prosecution's use of silence and its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment. The question presented in the case was whether the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights. In the opinion announcement made by Justice Samuel Alito, he announced the judgement for a divided court. The Supreme Court reached a 5-4 decision in favor of Texas. Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote his concurring opinion that said the petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim failed because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer's question.[13] [14] It was further argued that "that a criminal defendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his own trial", except the fact that the criminal defendant has an "absolute right not to testify." Justice Kennedy concluded that "any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection" and also "this requirement ensures that the government is put on notice when a defendant intends to claim this privilege and allows the government to either argue that the testimony is not self-incriminating or offer immunity. The Supreme Court held that there are two execeptions on the principle:
Associate Justice in a separate opinion, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia said that: "Salinas' Fifth Amendment privilege would not have been applicable even if invoked because the prosecutor's testimony regarding his silence did not compel Salinas to give self-incriminating testimony". Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that "Salinas' silence was enough to claim the Fifth Amendment privilege and the majority raised clear problems for uneducated defendants who may not know the explicit language necessary to protect their rights."[15] The Supreme Court also concluded that a prosecutor cannot comment on a defendant's silence.[16]
The Supreme Court also clarified that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves and there is no Constitutional violation as long as police do not deprive defendants of the opportunity to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege. The Supreme Court held that the defendant's silence was valid at the trial and could be used as presumption of guilt and assuming the defendant does not affirmatively assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[17] [18] [19] It is also argued that the importance of this case created an important exception to the general right to remain silent when questioned by the government in a criminal matter or facing a criminal trial.[20]