Implications of Salinas v. Texas

By Caitlin Barbas

The case of Salinas v. Texas has increased attention and controversy in regards to the rights of individuals within the United States justice system after being argued in the United States Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment became an integral part of what would have otherwise been a standard state murder trial, after prosecutors introduced Genoveno Salinas's silence when asked an incriminating question[1] during a police questioning prior to arrest, as evidence. Salinas had answered all other questions during the interview, however, refused to answer only that specific question.

After the Texas State Court of Appeals and the State Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against Salinas, the case was brought to the United States Supreme Court. Salinas argued that his silence prior to arrest was an invocation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and, therefore, should not have been used by prosecutors as a means of demonstrating his guilt[2]. The Fifth Amendment protects from self-incrimination, stating, “[no person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”[3]

            In the opinion of the court, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Kennedy, the rulings of the Texas State Courts were upheld. Using the cases of Quinn v. United States and Minnesota v. Murphy as the basis for the decision, the court explained that as Salinas did not explicitly state that he was utilizing his Fifth Amendment rights, he could not expect his decision to remain silence to be protected under this amendment.[4]  The court further stated that due to the nature of the voluntary police interrogation, Salinas’s silence would not be acceptable as an invocation of the Fifth Amendment. By agreeing to speak with the police, Salinas’s case fell “outside the scope of Miranda and other cases in which [the court has] held that various forms of governmental coercion prevented defendants from voluntarily invoking the privilege.” [5]

            Following the decision of this case, it is possible that this instance of a lack of clarity between the interviewer and the interviewee may occur in future investigations. Thus, one must question how explicitly an interviewee will need to state their decision to invoke their protection against self-incrimination. Must this protection be specifically cited as the Fifth Amendment or would an explanation instead be acceptable? Furthermore, how must the timing of the invocation occur relative to the questioning? Richard Albert explains how the explicitness needed when stating the use of the silence during white collar investigation could create misinterpretation. Albert states that, provided a company has a predetermined procedure in the case of white collar investigation, “if the witness decides to follow company procedure only when the questioning approaches a sensitive area, it would seem that Salinas would give a prosecutor the option to later argue that the termination of the questioning at that particular point is an indication of guilt.” [6]

            Overall, while the case of Salina v. Texas, as well as previous cases dealing with the Fifth Amendment and admissibility of silence in court, establishes that an interviewee must clearly state an invocation of the Fifth Amendment, there remains a lack of clarity as to how and when this invocation must occur.

---

[1] Lane Powell Attorneys and Counselors. "Salinas v. Texas: How ." Accessed November 11, 2013. http://www.lanepowell.com/16881/salinas-v-texas-how-the-supreme-courts-decision-in-a-murder-case-impacts-the-issue-of-remaining-silent-in-corporate-white-collar-investigations/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Cornell University Law School. "Fifth Amendment." Accessed November 12, 2013. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment.

[4] Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174, 186 L. Ed. 2d 376 (2013) [2013 BL 158572]

[5]Ibid.

[6] Albert, Richard F. "The Supreme Court's Decision In Salinas v. Texas: Implications For White Collar Investigations." Forbes . Accessed November 11, 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2013/06/19/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-salinas-v-texas-implications-for-white-collar-investigations/.