Salinas v. Texas

Salinas v. Texas, 570 US 178 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which the court held 5-4 decision, declaring that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause does not extend to defendants who simply choose to remain silent during questioning, even though no arrest has been made nor the Miranda rights read to a defendant.[5][6][7] However, Salinas disagreed with the prosecutor and argued that he could still invoke Fifth Amendment rights as a protection against self-incrimination whether he was in custody or not."[10] Justice Kennedy concluded that "any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection"[8] and also "this requirement ensures that the government is put on notice when a defendant intends to claim this privilege and allows the government to either argue that the testimony is not self-incriminating or offer immunity.The Supreme Court held that there are two exceptions on the principle: Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in a separate opinion, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said that: "Salinas' Fifth Amendment privilege would not have been applicable even if invoked because the prosecutor's testimony regarding his silence did not compel Salinas to give self-incriminating testimony".Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that "Salinas' silence was enough to claim the Fifth Amendment privilege and the majority raised clear problems for uneducated defendants who may not know the explicit language necessary to protect their rights.
Supreme Court of the United StatesTexas Court of Criminal AppealsJohn RobertsAntonin ScaliaAnthony KennedyClarence ThomasRuth Bader GinsburgStephen BreyerSamuel AlitoSonia SotomayorElena KaganU.S. Const. amends. Vself-incriminationMiranda rightsHouston, Texasshotgun shellsballistics analysisMexicomistrialFifth AmendmentHarris County, Texasdissenting opinionGriffin v. CaliforniaMitchell v. United StatesDoyle v. OhioMiranda v. ArizonaEscobedo v. IllinoisBerghuis v. ThompkinsFlorida v. PowellRight to silenceDepartment of Homeland SecurityUnited States Fifth Amendmentcriminal procedureGrand JuryHurtado v. CaliforniaEx parte BainWong Wing v. United StatesMaxwell v. DowUnited States v. MorelandBeck v. WashingtonUnited States v. CottonDouble Jeopardy ClauseBlockburger v. United StatesGrady v. CorbinUnited States v. FelixUnited States v. DixonUnited States v. RandenbushBurton v. United StatesFong Foo v. United StatesAshe v. SwensonBurks v. United StatesEvans v. MichiganBravo-Fernandez v. United StatesMcElrath v. GeorgiaUnited States v. WilsonLudwig v. MassachusettsSmith v. United StatesUnited States v. PerezUnited States v. JornUnited States v. DinitzOregon v. KennedyBlueford v. ArkansasBartkus v. IllinoisWaller v. FloridaUnited States v. WheelerHeath v. AlabamaUnited States v. LaraPuerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleGamble v. United StatesDenezpi v. United StatesEx parte BigelowPalko v. ConnecticutLouisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberBaxstrom v. HeroldNorth Carolina v. PearceBenton v. MarylandSelf-Incrimination ClauseUnited States v. SullivanWilliams v. FloridaEdwards v. ArizonaOregon v. ElstadIllinois v. PerkinsMcNeil v. WisconsinUnited States v. HubbellDickerson v. United StatesChavez v. MartinezYarborough v. AlvaradoMissouri v. SeibertUnited States v. PataneMaryland v. ShatzerJ. D. B. v. North CarolinaBobby v. DixonHowes v. FieldsVega v. Tekoh