AdamSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 WTF?! Supreme Court Rules That Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used In Court By JESSE J. HOLLAND 06/17/13 11:27 AM ET EDT WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent. The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon. Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution. The high court upheld that decision. The Fifth Amendment protects Americans against forced self-incrimination, with the Supreme Court saying that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant's refusal to testify at trial. The courts have expanded that right to answering questions in police custody, with police required to tell people under arrest they have a right to remain silent without it being used in court. Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions – therefore not invoking his right to silence – and since he wasn't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection. Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'" The court decision was down its conservative/liberal split, with Alito's judgment joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. "In my view the Fifth Amendment here prohibits the prosecution from commenting on the petitioner's silence in response to police questioning," Breyer said in the dissent. Salinas was charged in 1993 with the previous year's shooting deaths of two men in Houston. Police found shotgun shells at the crime scene, and after going to the home where Salinas lived with his parents, obtained a shotgun kept inside the house by his father. Ballistic reports showed the shells matched the shotgun, but police declined to prosecute Salinas. Police decided to charge him after one of his friends said that he had confessed, but Salinas evaded police for years. He was arrested him in 2007, but his first trial ended in a mistrial. It was during his second trial that prosecutors aggressively tried to use his silence about the shotgun in closing remarks to the jury. Salinas was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Texas Court of Appeals and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, with the latter court saying "pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and that prosecutors may comment on such silence regardless of whether a defendant testifies." The case is Salinas v. Texas, 12-246. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-silence_n_3453968.html Quote
Members ihpguy Posted June 19, 2013 Members Posted June 19, 2013 Definitely WTF? But that is why I am not a judge. Nor lawyer. I suppose I need a further explanation. And more than once to understand what are the salient points involved here. Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted June 19, 2013 Members Posted June 19, 2013 Amazing... convicted by what you don't say. Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 19, 2013 Members Posted June 19, 2013 So, first you have to be alert and ready to invoke your fifth amendment rights so that the questioning authorities can decide to arrest you, read to you your Miranda rights and then go get you an attorney (if you request one). Wow, talk about a slippery slope or tight rope. I am willing to bet most police don't understand this or the legal theory behind it. Best regards, RA1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 ???? Don't get this. AS, please explain this to me? I don't understand how can five justices justify this ruling? What am I missing here? Anyone please... Is Miss Utha right about the education system? She should be awarded Miss congeniality and Miss Insight? It's like playing who said it faster. Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 19, 2013 Members Posted June 19, 2013 This ruling mystifies me also. Our education system sucks, but that is for further and later discussion. Keep trying to help "others". Best regards, RA1 Quote
Guest Hoover42 Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Of course, this is the same Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Citizens United in that incredibly stupid :"Corporations are People" case. Talk about a deeply flawed judgement. NEVER EVER answer any questions posed to you by police. The police are not your friends. Not only can anything you say be used against you it WILL be used against you given the chance. if Mr. Salinas had followed that rule, this wouldn't have happened. Quote
