“SILENCE IS ARGUMENT CARRIED OUT BY
CARRIED OUT BY OTHER MEANS”
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).
Salinas v. Texas
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Food For Thought
Food
For Thought
Facts of the Case
Self‐Incrimination?
Your Silence “may be used against you”
Ci it S ilt
Circuit Spilt
Decision of the Court
Analysis
Questions
Salinas v. Texas
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT:
“petitioner suggested that it would be unfair to require a
suspect unschooled in the particulars of legal doctrine to
do anything more than remain silent in order to invoke
his ‘right to remain silent.’ But popular misconceptions
notwithstanding, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that
no one may be ‘compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness
it
against
i t himself’
hi
lf’ it does
d
nott establish
t bli h an
unqualified ‘right to remain silent.’”
‐ Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct 2174, 2182‐83 (2013) (plurality opinion). Salinas v. Texas
FACTS
• A Murder
A Murder
• An Interrogation (Interview)
i (
i )
• A Trial
Salinas v. Texas
Self‐Incrimination: A Roller Coaster Ride Through History.
f
g
y
Voluntary Confession
Silence
Witness Against One’s Self
Self‐Accusation
lf
T
Torture
Salinas v. Texas
IMPEACHMENT
Jenkins v. Anderson
Pre‐Arrest, Pre‐
Miranda Silence can be used to
can be used to impeach
Salinas v. Texas
CASE IN CHIEF
Fletcher v. Weir
Post‐Arrest, Pre‐Miranda d
Silence Can be used to impeach
Doyle v. Ohio
Post‐Arrest,
Post
Arrest, Post
Post‐
Miranda Silence cannot be used to impeach
Wainwright v. G
Greenfield
fi ld
Post‐Miranda Silence cannot be used as Griffin v. Cal. (Not Testify)
evidence of guilt
g
Silence at trial cannot be used to infer guilt
Salinas v. Texas
The Circuit Split
The Circuit Split
1
2
8
9
3
7
1
0
4
6
5
1
1
D
D.
C.C
Salinas v. Texas
And the Supreme Court said…
We’re gonna get side tracked
and not decide the issue!
Salinas v. Texas
“Before
Before petitioner could rely on the privilege petitioner could rely on the privilege
against self‐incrimination, he was required to invoke it.”
“Salinas'
Salinas claim would fail even if he had 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 t ti
testimony.”
”
“I believe that the Fifth Amendment prohibits a prosecutor from commenting
prosecutor from commenting on Salinas's silence.”
Salinas v. Texas
Dissent’ss Three Part
Dissent
Three Part‐Test
Test
(1)whether it is fair to infer that the privilege is being invoked;
(2)if it is unclear, whether it is important for the state to know if the privilege is being i k d
invoked;
(3) in any event, whether there is good reason to excuse an express invocation Salinas v. Texas
QUESTIONS?
Salinas v. Texas