White Collar Litigation Update -- Supreme Court Permits Prosecution’s Comments Regarding Suspect’s Silence Where Suspect Did Not Specifically Invoke Fifth Amendment

by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Supreme Court Permits Prosecution’s Comments Regarding Suspect’s Silence Where Suspect Did Not Specifically Invoke Fifth Amendment. During government investigations, counsel regularly advise their clients that if a law enforcement agent unexpectedly shows up at their home or office, the client should decline to be interviewed and instead direct the agent to counsel. A recent decision by the Supreme Court highlights the risks of failing to precisely follow that advise. In Salinas v. Texas, the Court held that a suspect must affirmatively invoke the Fifth Amendment and cannot simply remain silent in response to non-custodial questioning in order to avoid potential adverse inferences.

Petitioner Genovevo Salinas was asked to come to the police station to voluntarily answer questions regarding a murder investigation. He was not arrested and the police did not give him Miranda warnings. During the interrogation, Salinas agreed to give the police his shotgun. He was then asked whether a ballistics test would show that the shotgun shells found at the murder scene would match his shotgun. Salinas did not answer the question, but instead “looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, and began to tighten up.” After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which Salinas answered.

Salinas was later charged with murder, but fled. He was arrested 15 years later. He did not testify at trial. During closing argument, the prosecutor highlighted his silence in response to the question about the shotgun and argued that his silence was evidence of guilt because an innocent person would have provided an exculpatory response when asked whether the shotgun shells would match those recovered at the murder scene. Salinas was convicted and his conviction was upheld on appeal.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split in the lower courts as to whether the prosecution may use evidence of a defendant’s assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination during a noncustodial police interview as part of its case in chief. However, the Court did not resolve that issue because it concluded that defendant had not even asserted the privilege. Justice Alito and two justices concluded that before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, he was required to invoke it, which by remaining silent, he had not done. Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion, to which Justice Scalia joined, concurring in the judgment.

Justice Alito began his analysis by restating the rule that “a witness who ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ at the time he relies on it” (quoting Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 (1984). The Court identified two exceptions to this general rule. The first exception was delineated in Griffin v. California, which held that criminal defendants do not need to invoke the privilege at their own trials in order to benefit from its protection. 380 U.S. 609, 613-615 (1965). The second exception applies in inherently coercive situations where the forfeiture of the privilege cannot be said to have been voluntary. Justice Alito concluded that petitioner’s situation did not fall within either of the two exceptions because he was not a criminal defendant at trial when he made the statement, and there were no allegations that his failure to assert the privilege was involuntary.

Petitioner argued that the Court should adopt a third exception to the invocation requirement for situations where a witness stands mute and declines to give an answer. The plurality declined to create this additional exception, stating that prior decisions established that invocation of the privilege must be express. The Court emphasized the importance of putting courts on notice of the reason for remaining silent so that they can evaluate the merits of the Fifth Amendment claim, which requires express invocation. Finally, the Court rejected petitioner’s argument that requiring express invocation would be unworkable in practice.

Justice Thomas suggested that petitioner’s claim would have failed even if he had expressly invoked the privilege because he was not “compelled” to give the self-incriminating testimony. Thomas rejected the Court’s holding in Griffin, that adverse inferences could not be drawn from a defendant’s failure to testify.

Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, to which three other justices joined, stating that, in his view, the Fifth Amendment precluded the prosecution from commenting on petitioner’s silence in response to a question during a voluntary interrogation. The dissent’s analysis differs from that of the majority because the dissent argues that the Court’s precedent does not require that a witness expressly mention the Fifth Amendment in order to invoke the privilege and receive its protection, and that invocation can be inferred from the circumstances. Under this approach, a witness only needs to invoke the privilege explicitly where it is not clear from the circumstances that the witness intends to invoke the privilege or where the questioner has a special need to know whether the witness is invoking the privilege—neither of which apply to petitioner. Justice Breyer argued that the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s questioning gave rise to a reasonable inference that he intended his silence to serve as an exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights. Thus, he reasoned that because petitioner properly invoked the privilege by remaining silent, it was impermissible for the prosecutor to comment on petitioner’s silence.

Although Salinas involves police questioning in the context of a murder investigation, there is nothing about the decision that would limit its application to any law enforcement questioning where the witness is not in custody. Thus, whenever a witness declines to speak to an agent without expressly referencing the Fifth Amendment, the government would appear to be free to argue that the refusal to answer questions was an indication of guilt. Salinas did not identify the specific words that would invoke the privilege and prohibit an adverse inference. In order to minimize the risk of any such adverse inference, in-house and outside counsel may wish to remind witnesses not to speak to law enforcement without counsel present and that if approached they should utter the magic words, “I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.” The assertion of constitutional protections would not seem to require such a formalistic approach, but the current Court appears to believe otherwise.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.