TRI In The News
Now Silence is Evidence of a Crime
From One News Now
The U.S. Supreme Court struck a blow to the 5th Amendment right to remain silent, says an attorney who filed a brief in the case,Salinas vs. Texas.
The 5th Amendment protects a suspect's right to remain silence when questioned by police, but the court ruled that remaining silent can used as evidence against you.
John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, spoke to OneNewsNow about the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was found guilty of murder in Texas.
Salinas voluntarily rode to the police station without being advised of his rights, answered some questions, and then declined to answer more.
Citing the Supreme Court ruling, Whitehead says Salinas "had to specifically invoke his 5th Amendment privilege or what he said could be used against him, or even his silence could be used against him as evidence of his crime."
Indeed, during trial the prosecutor suggested that Salinas' silence during a police interview was a "very important piece of evidence" used by police, the Rutherford Institute reported.
The high court ruling also found that the Miranda warnings didn't need to be given to Salinas because he wasn't arrested, says Whitehead.
Whitehead details the substance of the Rutherford Institute brief filed in the case, which apparently was ignored:
"If the police put you in a car, they need to give you your Miranda warnings, tell you your rights and so the court dismissed all of that," Whitehead says.
"What we have is a case that basically says that you can be taken into custody by the police but they can bypass your Miranda warnings," says Whitehead, "and if you invoke your 5th Amendment privilege, but you don't say you're invoking it, you just get silent, that can be used against you as evidence of guilt."
That means a lot of people would be found guilty, says Whitehead, who adds the decision turns Miranda rights on its ear.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the Salinas vs. Texas case.
