Supreme Court Reconsiders the Right to Remain Silent: Salinas v. Texas

The right to remain silent, first solidified in Miranda v. Arizona, is one of the bedrock principles of our criminal justice system. However, the extent of its protections may be changing.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Salinas v. Texas. The case addressed the significance of a defendant exercising his right to remain silent prior to arrest, specifically whether it can be used as evidence against him in a subsequent criminal trial.

In 1992, the investigation of a double homicide led Houston police to Genovevo Salinas. He voluntarily agreed to accompany officers to the police station for questioning. For approximately one hour, Salinas answered all of the questions posed by police. He was not placed under arrest or read his Miranda rights. However, when asked whether shotgun shells found at the murder scene would match a shotgun found at his home, Salinas remained silent. According to the officer question Salinas, he also demonstrated signs of deception.

After ballistics testing confirmed the shells were a match, Salinas was charged with murder. After evading capture for 15 years, Salinas stood trial, and the prosecution introduced evidence of his silence regarding the gun casings. The trial court allowed the evidence over the objection of Salinas’ defense attorney. Salinas was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Miranda v. Arizona, the right to remain silent prevents the prosecution from commenting on a defendant’s failure to take the witness stand or refusal to answer questions once in police custody. The specific question presented in Salinas is whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights.

In its decision affirming that the Fifth Amendment does not protect prearrest silence, a divided Texas Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged a “conspicuous split and lack of guidance from the Supreme Court.” Thus, the decision should provide much needed clarity to courts, law enforcement and defendants on an important constitutional issue.