Supreme Court to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt

Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:48pm EST

Related Topics

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial.

Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston.

Salinas voluntarily answered police questions for about an hour, but he became silent when asked whether shotgun shells found at the crime scene would match a gun found at his home. An officer testified that Salinas demonstrated signs of deception.

Ballistics testing later matched the gun to the casings left at the murder scene.

Salinas was charged in 1993 but evaded arrest until his capture in 2007.

His first trial ended in a mistrial. At his second trial, Texas was able to introduce evidence of his silence in the police station, over his lawyer's objections.

Salinas' lawyer argued that his client deserved a Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, even though he had not been under arrest or read his rights under the landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona.

Last April, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but noted that federal appeals courts are split as to whether "pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt."

Texas opposed the appeal, saying that the protection against compulsory self-incrimination is irrelevant when a suspect is under no compulsion to speak, as Salinas was because he was not under arrest and was speaking voluntarily. It also said that any error was harmless.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

The decision is Salinas v. Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-246.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Terry Baynes in New York; Editing by Eric Beech)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (6)
BuffaloGirl wrote:
Legislation that would allow using silence as an indication of guilt is over reaching and thereby unconstitutional. There are many reasons why someone might not speak, fear of being wrongly accused being one of them – afraid that no matter what they say, it will be twisted into being a reason for a guilty verdict, so they remain silent. Using silence in this way is open to serious abuse.

Jan 11, 2013 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:
This is complete and utter insanity, a blank cheque to imprison anyone. Protection against self-incrimination is a staple of law in North America. How by any stretch of the imagination could saying nothing be evidence of guilt? “Well your honor we have no evidence and no confession but please find him guilty because he did not say anything to us.” It is simply beyond comprehension that anyone would even consider this. More evidence that our society is decaying faster than we can keep up with it.

Jan 14, 2013 7:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:
I smell another 5:4 decision coming up.

Jan 14, 2013 11:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.