WTF !!!!!!! You better b SCARED !!!!!!!!! On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a fragmented 5-4 decision in Salinas v. Texas.1 In Salinas, five Justices agreed, on narrow grounds, that prosecutors may use the pre-arrest silence of a cooperating suspect as evidence of his guilt without implicating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The plurality opinion, written by Justice Alito and joined only by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, concluded that an individual who voluntarily cooperates with law enforcement officials must “expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to [an] officer’s question” “in order to benefit from it.”2 In other words, the plurality concluded that in a noncustodial interview, if an individual does not assert his or her Fifth Amendment rights when refusing to answer an investigator’s question, the government is free to draw an adverse inference from that silence at trial. The decision speaks volumes about the risks of talking to government agents without the assistance of counsel. In light of the holding, potential subjects and targets of investigations must give serious consideration to the costs of cooperating with the government without consulting an attorney. When approached by the government, most people are not equipped to discern whether agreeing to answer questions is in their best interest, and fewer still would believe that their silence in response to a question could be affirmatively introduced as evidence of their guilt.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:19:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015