CASE BRIEF
Case Name – Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 12 (2013)
Facts – Genovevo Salinas, the petitioner, who was not in custody or read Miranda warnings, agreed to go to the police station to answer questions regarding involvement in a murder. When petitioner was asked if ballistic testing would match ammunition casings found at the scene, he remained silent. Petitioner contended that the prosecutors’ use of his silence to indicate guilt violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
Procedural History – The petitioner was charged in Texas state court with murder. The prosecution contended his silence indicated guilt. The petitioner argued at trial that remaining silent was a legitimate means of invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. He was convicted …show more content…
2) A witness may not use the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving testimony he does not want to give.
3) Invoking the Fifth Amendment makes known to the Government that a witness intends on using this right.
Holding – The state court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Criminal Appeals were not in error because a witness does not invoke rights by merely remaining silent and petitioner was required to declare the right in order to protect his interests.
Rationale – The court deduced that invoking the Fifth Amendment requires the proper action on the part of the person choosing to use it and proper channels exist to make these indications known for those choosing to invoke such rights. The general rule is that a witness must invoke the privilege to benefit from it and virtually everyone is acquainted with the concept, even the uneducated and the young. The court discerned that by agreeing to non-custodial pre-Miranda
police interview without expressly stating his intentions of invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the petitioner forfeited such privileges. It was an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s interview by police was voluntary and he resumed answering questions after the period of silence, further indicating he was not invoking Fifth Amendment
Case Name – Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 12 (2013)
Facts – Genovevo Salinas, the petitioner, who was not in custody or read Miranda warnings, agreed to go to the police station to answer questions regarding involvement in a murder. When petitioner was asked if ballistic testing would match ammunition casings found at the scene, he remained silent. Petitioner contended that the prosecutors’ use of his silence to indicate guilt violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
Procedural History – The petitioner was charged in Texas state court with murder. The prosecution contended his silence indicated guilt. The petitioner argued at trial that remaining silent was a legitimate means of invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. He was convicted …show more content…
2) A witness may not use the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving testimony he does not want to give.
3) Invoking the Fifth Amendment makes known to the Government that a witness intends on using this right.
Holding – The state court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Criminal Appeals were not in error because a witness does not invoke rights by merely remaining silent and petitioner was required to declare the right in order to protect his interests.
Rationale – The court deduced that invoking the Fifth Amendment requires the proper action on the part of the person choosing to use it and proper channels exist to make these indications known for those choosing to invoke such rights. The general rule is that a witness must invoke the privilege to benefit from it and virtually everyone is acquainted with the concept, even the uneducated and the young. The court discerned that by agreeing to non-custodial pre-Miranda
police interview without expressly stating his intentions of invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the petitioner forfeited such privileges. It was an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s interview by police was voluntary and he resumed answering questions after the period of silence, further indicating he was not invoking Fifth Amendment