In an important case known as Salinas vs. Texas the United States Supreme Court decided that a suspect's silence can sometimes be used against them during police interviews that take place prior to arrest and the reading of the Miranda Rights. For example, if a man is apprehended by the police and asked if he stole items from a nearby store, his silence can be used as incriminating evidence until the man is actually arrested. At this point, police are required to read the suspect his or her Miranda Rights and the right to remain silence can be invoked. After the rights are read, suspects no longer have to answer incriminating questions and can wait for a lawyer to represent them through the trial if they are formally charged.

This issue showed up in court when a man with the initials G.S. arrived at a police station to discuss the murder of two brothers. The man complied with the officers' questions, but when he was asked if the shotgun casings would match his gun, he did not answer the question. Instead, he fell silent and refused to speak for the rest of the interview. The man had not been formally arrested at this time, and was merely dialoguing with the police in an investigative discussion. The man was arrested after his suspicious silence raised questions. Later, the prosecution used the silence as an admission of guilt, convincing jurors that the man was guilty because he had refused to talk when asked about the shotgun shells.

The police say that the man became nervous and withdrawn about an hour into the interview once questions started to point to the fact that the police viewed him as a suspect. The police say that the man shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, and clinched his hands in his lap. The behavior raised police suspicions even more and the man was arrested and read his Miranda rights. Later, the man was sentenced to 21 years in prison for the shooting death of two brothers. His defense lawyer asked for an appeal, claiming that the Texas court should not have used his silence as evidence of guilt because of the Fifth Amendment.

This amendment provides protection against self-incrimination. The State of Texas says that G.S.'s silence was not a violation of a Fifth Amendment right because it was taken voluntarily. If the man had already been read his Miranda Rights and was in custody, the silence may have been interpreted differently and could not have been used as evidence in the case. Before the current Supreme Court ruling, state and federal courts were sharply divided on the matter of silence prior to arrest.

Ten courts have upheld the Fifth Amendment in pre-arrest interviews, saying that silence should not be used against a person. None of those courts rule that the silence is only protected after a suspect is read his or her Miranda Rights. In the newest ruling, Supreme Court justices declared that prior to the reading of the Miranda Rights' and an individuals' arrest, silence can be used as evidence of guilt.

Even if a suspect does not know or understand the United States laws, the Supreme Court declares that prosecutors can use pre-arrest silence against them in a court of law. This ruling will greatly influence some criminal cases, and many defense attorneys will want to prove the conditions of an arrest to learn whether or not a suspect's silence was protected. If you want more information about Fifth Amendment rights in a court case, or if you believe that your Fifth Amendment rights have been violated in your case and you want compensation, then contact a local lawyer today!