A recent United States Supreme Court decision found that a person's refusal to answer a police officer's questions could be used against him as evidence of guilt because he did not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer's question. Without being placed in custody or being read Miranda rights, Salinas voluntarily answered some of an investigating officer's questions about a murder. When the officer asked Salinas whether he believed ballistics tests on the shotgun shell casings found at the scene would match with a Salinas' shotgun, he said nothing. This evidence was used against Salinas at trial and he was found guilty. He appealed to the Texas State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals and lost there as well. Unfortunately for Salinas, the US Supreme Court agreed with the Texas Courts, stating those who seek protection of the privilege against self incrimination must expressly claim it. Citing a previously decided case that silence is "insolubly ambiguous" (Doyle v Ohio), the Court said that while Salinas could very well have stood silent because he was invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, he also could have been embarrassed, thinking of a lie to protect himself, or trying to protect someone else. So the moral of the story is--if you don't want to answer the questions of a police officer because you might be guilty of a crime you should explain that you are taking the Fifth!
If you have been charged with a crime and need legal help, please visit our website at www.mb-law.com for more information.
Please be advised that this blog is meant for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be interpreted as providing legal advice or establishing a attorney-client relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment