Bell/Gaerte: 3 things to know about the right to silence after Salinas

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bell Gaerte 3 thingsRecently, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a major blow to one of the bedrocks of a criminal suspect’s rights. In Salinas v. Texas, the court made clear that a suspect’s silence can be used against the suspect in instances when the silence is only exercised passively. 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).

In Salinas, the suspect was voluntarily speaking to the police about a murder. Id. at 2175. He was not in custody and had not been given a Miranda warning. Id. He answered some preliminary questions, but “fell silent” when officers pressed him about whether shotgun shells found at the scene would match the shotgun that he owned. Id. at 2175-2176. At his trial, over Salinas’ objection, the prosecutor argued that his silence in the face of that question was evidence of his guilt. Id. at 2176. The court found that this evidence and argument did not violate Salinas’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Here are the three things you need to know about the impact of the court’s decision in Salinas:

1. A suspect must speak up to remain silent.

When asked about the shotgun shells, Salinas said nothing. Id. at 2178. Instead, he “[l]ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up.” Id. Moments later, Salinas resumed answering questions. Id. Salinas’ attorney argued that his client’s silence in response to the question was most likely due to his assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court rejected the argument and found that there were several reasons Salinas could have been silent, and that if he intended to exercise his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent he needed to say so. Id. at 2177. The court concluded that a suspect’s privilege against self-incrimination is not self-enforcing and he or she must now affirmatively “plead the Fifth” in response to an incriminating question he or she does not want to answer.

In other words, a suspect must speak up to remain silent. This seems counterintuitive, and the court’s ruling is one that many attorneys may not have predicted. In fact, four justices of our highest court disagreed that this should be the law. How does this translate to real life? Do most criminal suspects, innocent or not, know that they must “plead the Fifth” to assert their constitutional rights? On the day they are questioned, will they remember this lesson from civics class? Likely not. The practical reality is that many suspects who wish to remain silent and assert their constitutional rights will not properly do so, and their silence will be used against them.

2. The details of a suspect’s silence will now be litigated.

In a post-Salinas world, a prosecutor can comment on a suspect’s non-answer to a question. An issue in Salinas was why the suspect was silent, and the prosecutor in that case likely argued that the suspect’s biting of his lip instead of giving an exculpatory answer to the question demonstrated that he was guilty. If a prosecutor can comment on such things, can he or she also comment on whether a defendant stutters or pauses prior to expressly invoking his or her right to remain silent? Will such comments then force a defendant to testify at a trial when he or she would not otherwise do so in order to solely explain a speech pattern or the intent of his or her silence? Would that testimony open the door to cross-examination about the actual facts of the case? Time will tell. One thing is clear: In the future, silence and the reasons for it will be litigated and commented upon in court.

3. What’s my line, anyway? It is difficult to know.

This is a complex area of constitutional litigation that turns on narrow facts involving custodial versus non-custodial interrogations and whether an answer is incriminating or innocuous. The Salinas decision spawned an outcry from lawyers with vested interests on both sides of the issue. The opinion itself is a 5-4 decision, with the majority split 3-2. Lawyers will continue to debate the intricacies and impact of the decision in courtrooms throughout the country for years to come.

But what is a layperson expected to know with respect to his or her responsibility to invoke the right to remain silent? Justice Samuel Alito rejected the idea that the Fifth Amendment expresses an “unqualified right,” but when the rubber meets the road, what are the magic words? It seems clear that a suspect who verbalizes “I hereby assert my Fifth Amendment privilege to be free from self-incrimination” in response to a law enforcement officer’s question would be protected. What about the suspect who states something less “lawyer-ly,” such as “I’d rather not answer that”? Will the court cut that suspect some slack and conclude that the defendant’s intent to assert his right to silence was clear? Or will the court demand something more? If it is the latter, the practical reality may be that silence will be used to argue guilt in criminal courts in the future.•


James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached via email at or The opinions expressed are those of the authors.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  2. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  3. Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh who is helping Sister Fuller with this Con Artist Kevin Bart McCarthy scares Sister Joseph Therese, Patricia Ann Fuller very much that McCarthy will try and hurt Patricia Ann Fuller and Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh or any member of his family. Sister is very, very scared, (YES, I AM) This McCarthy guy is a real, real CON MAN and crook. I try to totall flatter Kevin Bart McCARTHY to keep him from hurting my best friends in this world which are Carolyn Rose and Paul Hartman. I Live in total fear of this man Kevin Bart McCarthy and try to praise him as a good man to keep us ALL from his bad deeds. This man could easy have some one cause us a very bad disability. You have to PRAISAE in order TO PROTECT yourself. He lies and makes up stories about people and then tries to steal if THEY OWN THRU THE COURTS A SPECIAL DEVOTION TO PROTECT, EX> Our Lady of America DEVOTION. EVERYONE who reads this, PLEASE BE CAREFUL of Kevin Bart McCarthy of Indianapolis, IN My Phone No. IS 419-435-3838.

  4. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.

  5. I had a hospital and dcs caseworker falsify reports that my child was born with drugs in her system. I filed a complaint with the Indiana department of health....and they found that the hospital falsified drug screens in their investigation. Then I filed a complaint with human health services in Washington DC...dcs drug Testing is unregulated and is indicating false positives...they are currently being investigated by human health services. Then I located an attorney and signed contracts one month ago to sue dcs and Anderson community hospital. Once the suit is filed I am taking out a loan against the suit and paying a law firm to file a writ of mandamus challenging the courts jurisdiction to invoke chins case against me. I also forwarded evidence to a u.s. senator who contacted hhs to push an investigation faster. Once the lawsuit is filed local news stations will be running coverage on the situation. Easy day....people will be losing their jobs soon...and judge pancol...who has attempted to cover up what has happened will also be in trouble. The drug testing is a kids for cash and federal funding situation.