Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Salinas v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationPrearrest SilenceNoncustodial Police InterviewFifth Amendmentprivilege against self-incriminationexpress invocation

Facts

Petitioner voluntarily accompanied police to the station for a noncustodial interview and, by the parties' assumption, was not given Miranda warnings. He answered questions for about an hour, but when asked whether his shotgun would match shells recovered at the murder scene, he did not answer and instead looked down, shuffled his feet, bit his lip, clenched his hands, and tightened up; after a short pause, he answered further questions. At trial, petitioner did not testify, and over objection the prosecution used his reaction and silence to suggest guilt. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.

Issue

Whether the Fifth Amendment barred the prosecution from using petitioner's silence during a voluntary, noncustodial, prearrest police interview as evidence of guilt when petitioner did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination.

Rule

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination generally must be claimed at the time a witness seeks to rely on it. Exceptions exist when a criminal defendant declines to testify at trial, or when official compulsion deprives the witness of a free choice to admit, deny, or refuse to answer, but absent such an exception, mere silence in a noncustodial interview does not invoke the privilege.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Detectives in Phoenix asked Omar Vega to come to the station to discuss a warehouse fire. He agreed, was told he was free to leave, and answered questions for 45 minutes. When asked whether his tools would bear traces of accelerant, Omar stared at the table and said nothing for 20 seconds, then resumed answering other questions.

At Omar's later arson trial, the prosecutor offers testimony about Omar's silence at that question as evidence of guilt. Omar argues the Fifth Amendment barred that use. What is the best answer?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a witness generally must claim the Fifth Amendment privilege at the time he seeks its protection. In a voluntary, noncustodial interview, standing mute in response to an incriminating question does not itself amount to invocation. The Court rejected a new exception based on silence plus an incriminating question or police suspicion. Because Omar was free to leave and did not expressly invoke the privilege, the prosecution's use of his noncustodial silence does not violate the Fifth Amendment.