The Fifth Amendment provides citizens with the opportunity to not be a witness in their own trial so that the possibility of self-incrimination is diminished. The self-incrimination clause protects defendants, but can be misconstrued at times as an admission of guilt by the defendant. There are several cases that have had to deal with the issue of self-incrimination, including Salinas v. Texas 570 US __ (2013) and Mitchell v. United States 526 US 314 (1999).
Salinas v. Texas 570 US __ (2013) FACTS: In the case of Salinas v. Texas 570 US __ (2013), a double homicide investigation in Houston, Texas in 1992 led officers to believe that Genovevo Salinas was a suspect in the murders (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d.). Mr. Salinas then accompanied …show more content…
The Court also decided that the District Court imposed an impermissible burden on the right against compelled self-incrimination by hold Mitchell’s silence against her at the sentencing hearing.
CASE SIGNIFICANCE: This case is significant because it decides that a guilty plea does not mean a defendant waives their right to the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause. It allows the defendant to remain silent and for law enforcement officers to rely on the facts of their case to get the conviction. It also advises the courts that a defendant’s silence cannot be used against them to draw an adverse inference or see it as an admission of guilt. Amanda Mitchell entered a guilty plea in her case involving the distribution of cocaine. According to the District Court, this guilty plea waived her right to remain silent during the sentencing hearing. She was later sentenced under the 10-year minimum mandatory sentence. Mitchell did not testify and it was later decided by the Supreme Court that a defendant’s silence cannot be used to draw an adverse inference in reference to the circumstances of their case. It also decided that a guilty plea does not waive the right to remain silent (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law,
Salinas v. Texas 570 US __ (2013) FACTS: In the case of Salinas v. Texas 570 US __ (2013), a double homicide investigation in Houston, Texas in 1992 led officers to believe that Genovevo Salinas was a suspect in the murders (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d.). Mr. Salinas then accompanied …show more content…
The Court also decided that the District Court imposed an impermissible burden on the right against compelled self-incrimination by hold Mitchell’s silence against her at the sentencing hearing.
CASE SIGNIFICANCE: This case is significant because it decides that a guilty plea does not mean a defendant waives their right to the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause. It allows the defendant to remain silent and for law enforcement officers to rely on the facts of their case to get the conviction. It also advises the courts that a defendant’s silence cannot be used against them to draw an adverse inference or see it as an admission of guilt. Amanda Mitchell entered a guilty plea in her case involving the distribution of cocaine. According to the District Court, this guilty plea waived her right to remain silent during the sentencing hearing. She was later sentenced under the 10-year minimum mandatory sentence. Mitchell did not testify and it was later decided by the Supreme Court that a defendant’s silence cannot be used to draw an adverse inference in reference to the circumstances of their case. It also decided that a guilty plea does not waive the right to remain silent (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law,