Salinas v. Texas

Last updated

Salinas v. Texas
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued 17 April, 2013
Decided 17 June, 2013
Full case nameGenovivo Salinas v. Texas
Docket no. 12-246
Citations570 U.S. 176 ( more )
133 S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 186 L.Ed. 376, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4697 (2013)
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
SubsequentFound guilty of homicide and sentenced to 20 years of prison and a $5,000 fine; 368 S. W. 3d 550, 557-559 (2011), Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, affirmed; 369 S. W. 3d 176 (2012); Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States granted, 568 U.S. ___ (2013)
Questions presented
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy
ConcurrenceThomas, joined by Scalia
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor
Laws applied
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

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]

Contents

Background

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]

Argument

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. [13] 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. [14] [15] 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." [10] Justice Kennedy concluded that "any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection" [8] 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:

  1. that a criminal defendant does not need to take the stand at trial in order to explicitly claim this privilege; and
  2. that failure to claim this privilege must be excused when that failure was due to government coercion." [8]

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." [13] The Supreme Court also concluded that a prosecutor cannot comment on a defendant's silence. [16]

Doctrine

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. [13] 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]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of making a statement that exposes oneself to an accusation of criminal liability or prosecution. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), was a case of the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Court established the Incorporation Doctrine by concluding that while certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination is not incorporated.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called "act-of-production doctrine". Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court's finding and overturned the petitioner's conviction, on the grounds that it was fundamentally unfair for the prosecutor to comment during the court proceedings on the petitioner's silence invoked as a result of a Miranda warning.

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. It is used on any occasion when it is considered the person being spoken to is under suspicion of having committed one or more criminal offences and consequently thus potentially being subject to criminal proceedings.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands their right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware that they have the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right.

Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a criminal suspect's assertion of his right to remain silent after a Miranda warning does not preclude the police from re-Mirandizing him and questioning him about a different crime.

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding the public safety exception to the normal Fifth Amendment requirements of the Miranda warning.

Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officer does not deprive a suspect of constitutional rights by failing to issue a Miranda warning. However, the court held open the possibility that the right to substantive due process could be violated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts.

South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prosecutors may use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test as evidence of guilt and that the introduction of such evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.

<i>Ellis v. United States</i> (1969) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case

Ellis v. United States of America, 416 F.2d 791, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in 1969. It addressed the question of a witness's refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court concluded that when a non-indicted witness who has waived their Fifth Amendment privilege by testifying voluntarily before a grand jury and with knowledge of their privilege, their waiver extends to a subsequent trial based on an indictment returned by the grand jury that heard their testimony.

Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its decision, the Court ruled on when a criminal defendant who opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence also opens the door to evidence that would otherwise be excluded by the Confrontation Clause.

References

  1. ↑ "SALINAS v. TEXAS". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
  2. ↑ Liptak, Adam (17 June 2013). "A 5-4 Ruling, One of Three, Limits Silence's Protection". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 10 January 2024.
  3. ↑ Bartol, et al. Bartol, Kurt R., Anne M. (27 November 2018). Pshycology and Law (2 ed.). United States. ISBN   9781544338880.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ↑ Senate (25 March 2016). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: 2014. Government Printing Office. ISBN   978-0-16-093110-9.
  5. ↑ Bennett et al. Tuck, Lemieux, Magee, Anthony J., David, Simon, Eric (28 May 2021). Pearson Edexcel: A Level US Government and Politics. Hodder Education. ISBN   9781398311183.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ Federal Law, Enforcement Training Center (U.S.) (30 January 2018). Legal Division Reference Book 2017. Department of Homeland Security. p. 343. ISBN   9780160943911.
  7. ↑ Emanuel, Steven L. (13 July 2020). Emanuel CrunchTime for Criminal Procedure. Aspen Publishing. p. 120. ISBN   9781543822458.
  8. 1 2 3 Lippman, Matthew (8 January 2019). Criminal Procedure. SAGE Publications. ISBN   978-1-5443-3476-9.
  9. ↑ "Salinas v. Texas".
  10. 1 2 "Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013)". Justia Law. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
  11. ↑ Beat, Matt; Bulitt, Julie; Bulitt, David (2023). The Power of Our Supreme Court:How Supreme Court Cases Shape Democracy. United States: Mango Media. p. 88.
  12. ↑ Briefs, Casenote Legal (14 April 2016). Casenote Legal Briefs for Criminal Procedure, Keyed to Kamisar, Lafave, Israel, King, Kerr, and Primus. Aspen Publishing. ISBN   978-1-5438-1983-0.
  13. 1 2 3 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246
  14. ↑ "Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013)". Justia Law. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  15. ↑ Hapner, Andrew (5 May 2015). "You Have the Right to Remain Silent, But Anything You Don't Say May Be Used Against You: The Admissibility of Silence as Evidence After Salinas v. Texas". Florida Law Review. 66 (4): 1763. ISSN   1045-4241.
  16. ↑ Roberson, Cliff (27 December 2021). Constitutional Law and Criminal Justice (3 ed.). Taylor & Francis. ISBN   9781000515886.
  17. ↑ "Fifth Amendment | Casetext".
  18. ↑ "Pre-Miranda silence can be used, court says | Arkansas Democrat Gazette". www.arkansasonline.com. 17 June 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2024.
  19. ↑ Jeffrey, Kaplan P. (20 August 2019). Linguistics and Law. Taylor & Francis. p. 31. ISBN   9780429832437.
  20. ↑ Schultz, David (2021). Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court (2 ed.). Infobase Publishing. p. 647. ISBN   9781438141800.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.