Anyone who has ever watched Law & Order knows that the police can't simply compel you to answer questions, whether you do or don't have a lawyer. Nonetheless, Law & Order doesn't teach what the Supreme Court held in last month's 5-4 decision in Salinas v Texas, 470 U.S.____(2013). That is, if someone refuses to answer a law enforcement officer's questions and wants to prevent that refusal from subsequently being used against him at trial, he must specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment. There's no ritualistic manner for invoking it, as long as the person being questioned is clear about the constitutional remedy he's invoking. The suspect can say, "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." Or, more simply, "I'm taking the Fifth." Or maybe even, "I’d better take five." However, Genovevo Salinas didn't say any of those things and, therefore, was out of luck. According to the Supreme Court, Salinas' refusal to answer, and his accompanying body language, were thus fair game for the prosecutors.
By way of background, here are some details from the underlying case:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
