Salinas v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States
570 U.S. (2013)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not protect a witness's silence during a noncustodial police interview unless the witness expressly invokes the privilege.

Facts:

Police were investigating a double murder and identified Genovevo Salinas as a person of interest.
Salinas voluntarily agreed to accompany officers to the police station for questioning in 1993.
The interview was noncustodial; Salinas was not under arrest, was not given Miranda warnings, and was free to leave.
During the approximately one-hour interview, Salinas answered most of the officer's questions.
When an officer asked Salinas whether his shotgun would match the shells recovered from the murder scene, he did not answer.
Instead of speaking, Salinas looked down, shuffled his feet, bit his lip, and tensed up for a few moments of silence.
Following this silent reaction, the officer asked other questions, which Salinas proceeded to answer.
Years later, Salinas was located living under an assumed name and charged with the murders.

Procedural Posture:

At trial in a Texas state court, Salinas did not testify.
The prosecution, over Salinas's objection, introduced evidence of his silent reaction to the officer's question about the shotgun as proof of his guilt.
The jury convicted Salinas of murder, and he was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Salinas appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, arguing the use of his silence violated the Fifth Amendment.
The intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is not constitutionally protected because it is not 'compelled.'
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, granted review and affirmed the lower court's decision on the same grounds.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split in authority among lower courts.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause prevent prosecutors from using a defendant's silence during a voluntary, noncustodial police interview as substantive evidence of guilt when the defendant did not expressly invoke the privilege?

Opinions:

Plurality - Alito

No. The Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause does not prevent prosecutors from using a defendant's pre-arrest, noncustodial silence as evidence of guilt when the defendant failed to expressly invoke the privilege. The privilege against self-incrimination is not self-executing and a witness who desires its protection must claim it. This 'express invocation' requirement ensures the government is on notice and can either challenge the privilege's applicability or grant immunity. There are two established exceptions—a defendant's right not to testify at their own trial and silence during a coercive custodial interrogation—but neither applies here because Salinas's interview was voluntary and noncustodial. Mere silence is 'insolubly ambiguous' and could be motivated by various reasons other than reliance on a constitutional right, such as embarrassment or an attempt to fabricate a lie. The burden was on Salinas to affirmatively assert the privilege, and his failure to do so means his silence lacks Fifth Amendment protection.

Concurring - Thomas

No. Salinas's claim would fail even if he had invoked the privilege because the prosecutor’s comments regarding his precustodial silence did not compel him to give self-incriminating testimony. The Court's holding in Griffin v. California, which forbids adverse inferences from a defendant's silence at trial, lacks a basis in the Fifth Amendment's text and history and should not be extended. The Fifth Amendment prohibits compelling a person to be a witness against himself, and telling a jury it may draw an adverse inference from silence does not constitute such compulsion. Therefore, even an express invocation of the privilege would not have prohibited the prosecutor's comments on Salinas's silence.

Dissenting - Breyer

Yes. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the prosecution from commenting on a defendant's silence in response to police questioning, even without an express invocation. The Court has long held that 'no ritualistic formula is necessary' to invoke the privilege, and the circumstances of this case made it clear Salinas was exercising his right. He was a suspect being questioned at a police station about a murder, and the question about the shotgun was directly incriminating. Allowing a prosecutor to comment on his silence places him in an 'impossible predicament' of either answering and incriminating himself or remaining silent and having that silence used as evidence of guilt. The plurality’s rule creates a trap for individuals who are not lawyers and may not know the 'magic words' required to invoke a fundamental constitutional right.

Analysis:

Salinas v. Texas significantly clarifies the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment privilege, establishing that it does not apply automatically to pre-arrest, noncustodial silence. The decision creates a bright-line rule requiring an express, unambiguous invocation for the privilege's protection to attach in such settings. This ruling places a substantial burden on individuals to know and affirmatively assert their rights during voluntary police questioning, as their silence can now be used as substantive evidence of guilt. For law enforcement and prosecutors, it opens a strategic window to use a suspect's pre-Miranda silence to build a case, fundamentally altering the dynamics of interviews with persons of interest.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Salinas v. Texas (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"