Court permits prosecutor use of pre-Miranda silence

This is just wrong.....






Court says pre-Miranda silence can be used
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press | June 17, 2013 | Updated: June 17, 2013 10:29am
Comments 22 E-mail Print

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

Don't know if you've ever seen this before. An interesting take from a Lawyer and a Detective along the lines of this subject.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.mirandawarning.org/histor...dawarning.html


Intimidating or coercive methods of police interrogation were once commonly referred to as undergoing the ‘third degree.’ Today, as protection against any possibility of police intimidation, we have the Miranda Warning.

On June 13, 1966, the outcome of Miranda v. Arizona provided that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when they are placed under arrest. This decision was based on a case in which a defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was accused of robbery, kidnapping, and rape. During police interrogation, he confessed to the crimes.

The conviction was overturned due to allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods. After a retrial that included witnesses and other evidence, Miranda was again convicted. His trial was, however, then assured of being fair, and the original conviction was reasonably upheld without question.

In 1964 the results of another trial, Escobedo v. Illinois, additionally provided that a suspect has the right to counsel being present during police questioning or to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police if the police intend to use the answers against the suspect at a trial, or if the person being questioned is being detained and questioned against their will.

In 1968 the finalized text for the Miranda Warning was provided by California deputy attorney general Doris Maier and district attorney Harold Berliner.

Prior to the institution of the Miranda Warning, confessions need only be voluntary on the part of the suspect. This created a difficult situation for police, who were then often faced with evidence at trial that the person was not of sound mind or were under circumstantial duress when they gave their confession.

The Miranda Warning protects an individual’s rights by explaining their options clearly and upholds police authority when they properly read the Miranda Warning and get a clear, intelligent answer that the suspect understands his or her rights as they have been explained.

The Miranda Warning is a legal necessity throughout the United States, and varies only slightly in its wording in different states.

This is why your not suppose to say anything till your lawyer shows up. He started to answers questions then at a critical point he decide to use his silence. If those questions were of the nature he was arrested for,his fault. Should have used the 5th from the start and waited till he had someone to represent him. Why would you talk to cops in the 1st place when you killed someone,robbed or any other felony? Most blue collar criminals are not that bright.

You are not obligated to speak to any LEO
If they ask for ID, surrender it and remain silent.
It is their job to get you to speak and admit "guilt".
There are to many trick questions to dodge them all if you
are not knowledgeable of at least the common ones.

NEVER SPEAK TO A COP, not even a witness statement without counsel present.