Confronted with that question, Genovevo Salinas responded with silence.
At his trial, the prosecutor sought to use Mr. Salinas’s silence as evidence of guilt. The prosecutor told the jury: “You know, if you asked somebody – there is a murder in New York City, is your gun going to match up [with] the murder in New York City?... An innocent person is going to say: What are you talking about? I didn’t do that. I wasn’t there. He [Salinas] didn’t respond that way. He didn’t say: No, it’s not going to match up.”
The jury convicted Salinas of the double murder. The conviction was upheld on appeal.
In urging the US Supreme Court to hear Salinas’s case, his lawyers noted that federal appeals courts and state supreme courts are sharply divided over the issue.
Ten courts have ruled that the Fifth Amendment right to silence in the face of police questioning extends to pre-arrest contacts, while nine other courts have ruled that there is no such protection before someone is in police custody or given Miranda warnings.
“The need to resolve this conflict is manifest,” Stanford Law Professor Jeffrey Fisher wrote in his brief on behalf of Salinas.
“There can be no serious dispute that the question whether the Fifth Amendment protects pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence in the face of law enforcement questioning is extremely important,” he wrote.
“Police officers and other law enforcement agents across the country attempt to conduct such questioning on a daily basis – approaching everyone from suspects of common street crime to high-ranking executives of Fortune 500 companies.
“Many of these investigations turn into prosecutions and, like this case, eventually proceed to trial,” he said.
Harris County Prosecutors had urged the high court to reject Salinas’s appeal. They said the Texas courts had ruled correctly that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence when that silence is presented as evidence of guilt at a trial.