Jump to content

Salinas v. Texas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Citation bot (talk | contribs) at 08:24, 13 January 2024 (Alter: url, title. URLs might have been anonymized. Added title. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. Removed parameters. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Лисан аль-Гаиб | #UCB_webform 468/686). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Comment: Looks good to me, but I can't overwrite the redirect Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Salinas v. Texas, 570 US 178 (2013) is a 2013 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 extent to defendants who simply choose to remain silent during questioning, even though no arrest have been made nor the Miranda rights being read to a defendant.[1][2][3]

Salinas v. Texas
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued 17 April, 2013
Decided 17 June, 2013
Full case nameGenovivo Salinas v. Texas
Docket no.12-246
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
SubsequentFound guilty of homicide and sentenced to 20 years of prison and a $5,000 fine
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

Background

In 1992, at 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 nor the police read his Miranda rights, Salinas agreed to accompany the police officers to the police station, during the interrogation, Salinas answering every question that police officers asking him not until when the police officer whether the shotgun shells that was found at the scene would match the gun that was found at Salinas' home. According to the police officer, Salinas didn't answer the question and demonstrated signs of deception.[4] A ballistics analysis was later revealed and found out that the gun that was found at the scene matched Salinas' gun with the casings. Police also found a witness who said Salinas admitted the killings. In 1993, Salinas was charged with the murders but was never found. 15 years later, Salinas was found in Mexico and captured, he was put into first trial but is resulted in mistrial. In the second trial, the prosecutor attempt to introduce Salinas' silence as an evidence about the gun casings;[5] however, Salinas disagree with the prosecutor and argued that he can still invoke the Fifth Amendment rights as a protection against self-incrimination whether he was on custody or not.[6] The trial court agreed with the evidence and found Salinas guilty of the murders sentenced to 20 years of 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.[7] However, the case was brought to Supreme Court of the United States and it was granted on January 11, 2013.[8][9][10]

Argument

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and Fourteenth Court of Appeals justify 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 is 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?. In the Opinion announcement made by Alito; Justice Alito, annouce the judgement for a divided court. The Supreme Court held 5-4 decision, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Salinas, in which Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote his concurring opinion that says petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim failed becuase he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officers question.[11][12] It is 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 rght not to testify."[8] Justice Kennedy concluded that "any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection"[6] 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."[6]

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 privelege 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.[14]

Doctrine

The Supreme Court also clarified "that 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.[15][16][17] It is also argued that the importance of this case created an important exeption to the general right to remain silent when questioned by the government in a criminal matter or facing a criminal trial.[18]

See also

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. ^ a b c Lippman, Matthew (8 January 2019). Criminal Procedure. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-5443-3476-9.
  7. ^ "Salinas v. Texas".
  8. ^ a b "Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013)". Justia Law. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
  9. ^ Beat et al. Bulitt, Bulitt, Julie, David, Matt (2023). The Power of Our Supreme Court:How Supreme Court Cases Shape Democracy. United States: Mango Media. p. 88.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ "Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013)". Justia Law. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ a b https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246
  14. ^ Roberson, Cliff (27 December 2021). Constitutional Law and Criminal Justice (3 ed.). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000515886.
  15. ^ "Fifth Amendment | Casetext".
  16. ^ "Pre-Miranda silence can be used, court says | Arkansas Democrat Gazette". www.arkansasonline.com. 17 June 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2024.
  17. ^ Jeffrey, Kaplan P. (20 August 2019). Linguistics and Law. Taylor & Francis. p. 31. ISBN 9780429832437.
  18. ^ Schultz, David (2021). Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court (2 ed.). Infobase Publishing. p. 647. ISBN 9781438141800.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salinas_v._Texas&oldid=1195303741"