Mr. Beat presents
Supreme Court Briefs
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 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.
A bit later, 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.
Those 5 justices all voting against Salinas had different reasons for doing so.
Justices Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy all said Salinas had to clearly say he was using his 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself in order to benefit from it.
Justices Thomas and Scalia said well, even if Salinas clearly said he was using his 5th Amendment right, he still wouldn’t have the privilege.
Apparently they didn’t like the Miranda or Griffin decisions, either.
Justice Breyer wrote the dissent. He argued that Salinas’ silence was all he need to get his Fifth Amendment protections, and warned this decision could further hurt defendants who do not know their rights clearly enough down the road.
Salinas v. Texas kind of weakened the self incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.
I mean, now even people who are not suspects have to watch what they say or make sure they claim their right to remain silent, even if they haven’t heard the Miranda warning.
Now Americans have to be even more careful when being questioned by the police.
But you could argue it did make it easier for prosecutors to do their job, even if less Americans would now be willing to talk to the police.
I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!
That was the follow-up case to Berghuis v. Thompkins
That was requested by Matthew Abbitt.
Thank you for requesting that. I know he wanted either one of those cases, and I chose the one that
was easier to say and a more interesting story.
You have the right to remain silent. You could plead the fifth.
or you could comment below and let me know
Do you agree with the majority or minority on this one?
Also a shout out to my newest Patreon supporter, Justin. Thank you!
bye