?Salinas V. Texas Essay

Facts:
Two brothers were shot and killed in their place. Police recovered shotgun shells that led them to look into the suppliant. The suppliant handed over his gun and agreed to travel to the constabulary station for oppugning. The suppliant answered all of the inquiries the constabulary had, but when it came to the inquiry about the shells fiting the petitioner’s gun he went soundless. So the constabulary asked a few more inquiries to which the suppliant answered. The suppliant did non attest at the test, so the prosecuting officer used his silence as grounds of guilt.

Procedural History:
Petitioner was convicted of slaying and sentenced to 20 old ages. This was straight sent to the Texas State Court of Appeals who rejected the statement. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals took up the instance and affirmed the same judgement.

Issue:
Was the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right violated when prosecutor’s used his silence as grounds of guilt, when he was non in detention and had non had his Miranda rights read to him? Holding/Rule:

No, because the suppliant did non show that he wanted to raise his privilege to remain soundless, and non attest. Reasoning:
Neither of the two recognized exclusions to the supplication demand applies here. One is that a suppliant is non required to take the base and asseverate the privilege against self-incrimination at his ain test. The other is that a witness’ failure to raise the privilege may be pardon where authorities coercion made his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. It is undisputed the petitioner’s interview with the constabulary was voluntary. He admitted that he was free to go forth at any clip, so nil prevented him from stating he refused to reply the police’s inquiries. The 3rd exclusion was non even considered, because the demand for this one would be the informant would stay soundless and diminution to give an reply that the officers would surmise incriminating.