Advertisement

April 24, 2014

Salinas v. Texas: Your Silence May Be Used Against You Re: U.S. Supreme Court Litigation

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion with important ramifications for anybody who may be interviewed in connection with a criminal investigation. 

In Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. ­­­___ (2013) (Slip. Op. available here), the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not protect a witness's silence in the face of a voluntary, noncustodial police interview. Rather, a person who is not under arrest (or otherwise in custody) and voluntarily speaks to the police must  affirmatively and timely invoke the privilege  to benefit from its protections. The Court stated that there was no "ritualistic formula" necessary to assert the privilege, but that a witness could not do so "by simply standing mute."  Id. at 3 (citation omitted). If an individual fails to invoke, and is later charged with a crime, the prosecution may use his silence at trial as evidence of his guilt.

Petitioner Genovevo Salinas was a possible witness to a double murder. The police went to his home to question him, and he agreed to hand over his shotgun for ballistics testing. He further agreed to go to the police station for more questioning. Notably, because Salinas was not "in custody," police were under no obligation to read him Miranda warnings, and he was free to leave the station at any time.  During most of his hour-long interview, Salinas answered questions. At one point, the police asked Salinas if shells recovered from the crime scene would match the shotgun he had handed over. Salinas did not answer, but sat in silence for a few moments before the police moved on to other questions that Salinas answered. Eventually, Salinas was charged with, and tried for, the double murder. In its case-in-chief at trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of Salinas's silence in response to the police question about the shell casings, and argued that his silence was evidence of his guilt. The jury convicted Salinas, and two Texas Courts of Appeals affirmed the conviction.  Id. at 2-3.

The Supreme Court held that because Salinas did not unequivocally invoke his privilege against self-incrimination during the voluntary police interview, he had no Fifth Amendment right to have his silence in response excluded from evidence at his trial. Id. at 3. As the Court explained, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."  Id. at 10. It does not establish an unqualified "right to remain silent." Id. Salinas was not deprived of his ability to voluntarily invoke the privilege; rather, he failed to do so. Accordingly, the prosecution's use of his noncustodial silence did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

The decision is instructive to anybody who is asked to give an interview to a law enforcement agent. A quick glance at the headlines reminds us that FBI agents may seldom be far away, as they seek to investigate allegations of securities fraud, bank fraud, health care fraud and other wrongdoing. Agents have been known to approach bankers, traders, doctors and other professionals at their homes in the wee hours of the morning, or at their places of business. Although each circumstance must be considered on its own merits, experience generally tells us that the best course of action in such situations may be to politely decline the request for the moment, advise the agents of the desire to confer with counsel and then to do so. Salinas also tells us that an express and immediate invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may also be necessary in order to insure that an individual's silence is not used against that individual as a criminal defendant in a future proceeding.     

© 2014 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author

Partner

Marc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor and SEC enforcement attorney, represents corporations and individuals facing allegations of securities fraud, antitrust violations, environmental crimes, money laundering, bribery, mail/wire fraud, tax offenses, embezzlement, and other business crimes. He also conducts internal investigation work on behalf of corporate clients. His internal investigation work has been noted in The Wall Street Journal and Business Week Online.

Mr. Mukasey has represented corporate and individual...

212-508-6134

About the Author

Partner

Jonathan Halpern is a partner in Bracewell & Giuliani's litigation practice and focuses his practice on white collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, trials, appeals and complex, civil litigation. A significant component of his practice consists of the representation of individuals and business organizations in investigations and prosecutions by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Offices, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Office of...

212-508-6153
Floren J. Taylor, Litigation Attorney, Bracewell Law Firm
Associate

Floren Taylor is an associate in Bracewell and Giuliani's New York office, where she is a member of the Litigation section. Her practice focuses on white collar criminal defense, securities enforcement, and complex commercial litigation.

Ms. Taylor's criminal practice focuses on antitrust violations, securities fraud, pay-to-play schemes, public corruption, federal environmental crimes and obstruction of justice. She also assists with companies' internal investigations of potential misconduct, often in response to allegations of fraud or...

212-938-6456

About the Author

Katherine M. Sullivan, Litigation Attorney, Bracewell Law firm
Associate

Kate Sullivan counsels clients in general commercial and civil litigation, as well as white collar defense and broker dealer regulatory matters throughout the trial and appellate process.

While in law school, Kate was a judicial intern with the Honorable Robert J. Miller of the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, and with the Honorable Michael A. Shipp in the District of New Jersey.

212-938-6451

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.