Do You Have the Right to Remain Silent? | Salinas v. Texas

I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here

Mr. Beat's band

Mr. Beat on Twitter

In episode 33 of Supreme Court Briefs, police question a dude named Salinas about a murder, and they claim his silence made him seem guilty. He claims "the right to remain silent."

Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Jermaine Hysten.

Photo credits:

Alpha Stock Images

Nick Youngson

Check out cool primary sources here:

Other sources used:

Houston, Texas

December 18, 1992

Someone shoots and kills two brothers, named Juan and Hector Garza. Houston police arrive to the murder scene and find shotgun shell cases, but not much else. Later, they invite Genovevo Salinas (Saw-leen-ahs) down to the station for questioning. Salinas apparently had been at a party at the Garza residence the night before the murder.

He voluntarily goes down to the station, and the police do not arrest him nor read him the Miranda warning since he was free to leave at any time. They question Salinas for an hour, and he even agrees to give the police his shotgun for testing. However, according to the police report, Salinas stopped answering questions once the cops asked him if the gun would match the shells from the scene of the crime. The police also reported that after he was asked the question he acted much more nervously and seemed deceptive. Salinas left shortly after this.

Soon after this, police found out that indeed, Salina’s gun matched the casings at the murder scene. They also heard from a witness who said Salinas had admitted to killing the victims. So, a warrant went out for his arrest, but they couldn’t find him. They later found out he had fled to Mexico.

Flash forward almost 15 years later, in 2007, and a dude under a different name in Houston is arrested for drug charges. The fingerprints matched those of someone already in their system. It was Salinas. Boy was he surprised when he was arrested for the murder of the Garza brothers.

But Salinas wasn’t going down without a fight. At his trial, the prosecutor brought up how Salinas got all silent after the police asked him if the gun casings matched his shotgun, which was evidence that he was guilty. Salinas argued that the Fifth Amendment protected his right to remain silent, you know, to avoid self-incrimination. However, in the end the trial court found Salinas guilty of the murders, but he only given 20 years in prison and a $5,000 fine? Man, the justice system is weird.

It’s appeal time, baby. Salinas appealed to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas, and they agreed with the lower court. Salinas appealed again to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, who...yep, agreed with the lower courts. So he appealed to the Supreme Court, and they agreed to hear the case in January 2013, hearing arguments on April 17, 2013, more than 20 years after the murders.

The lawyers for Salinas argued Miranda v. Arizona, and a case called Griffin v. California, both protected his 5th amendment right to remain silent. Griffin v. California specifically brought up how prosecutors can’t use a suspect’s silence as evidence against her or him to the jury. And the Miranda decision, well I have a video about that one so just watch it mmmk?

The prosecution for Texas argued, however, that the Fifth Amendment just protected citizens from being forced into incriminating themselves. Salinas was not forced to be there. He volunteered. So basically the question the Court looked at was “Does the Fifth Amendment protect a defendant’s refusal to answer questions to the cops before she or he is read the Miranda warning or is arrested?”

The Court said “no.” On June 17, 2013, the Court announced it had sided with Texas, voting 5-4.