Salinas v texas , 570 us 1 (2013) facts while under investigation for murder salinas voluntarily handed over his shotgun and went to the police department for questioning while being interviewed the petitioner freely answered all questions with the exception of one-whether his gun would be a match to the murder weapon- at which time he. The difference in salinas v texas , however, is that genovevo salinas was never under arrest he was under the impression that the police wanted him “to take photographs and to clear him as [a. Jan 29 2013 consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent jan 29 2013 consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner. 133 s ct 2174 (2013) facts two brothers were shot and killed in their home police recovered shotgun shell casings at the home and their investigation led to defendant, who agreed to hand over his shotgun for ballistics testing and to go to the police station for questioning. The case decided monday, salinas v texas, no 12-246, arose from the 1992 murder of two brothers, juan and hector garza, in houston among the evidence the police found were discarded shotgun shells.
United states supreme court salinas vtexas, (2013) no 12-246 argued: april 17, 2013 decided: june 17, 2013 petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving miranda warnings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer's questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving miranda warnings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime at petitioner’s. Salinas v texas and the fifth amendment in salinas v texas , 570 us __ (june 17, 2013), the us supreme court ruled that the state may use a person’s silence in the face of police questioning against him if: (1) the questioning takes place while the person is not in police custody and (2) the person does not expressly invoke his or her. In the court of criminal appeals of texas no pd-0170-16 orlando salinas, appellant v the state of texas on appellant’s petition for discretionary review from the fourteenth court of appeals harris county keller, pj, delivered the opinion of the court in which keasler.
Facts of the case in 1992, houston police officers found two homicide victims the investigation led officers to genovevo salinas salinas agreed to accompany the officers to the police station where he was questioned for about one hour. Salinas answered every question until an officer asked whether the shotgun shells found at the scene of the crime would match the gun found in salinas' home according to the officer, salinas remained silent and demonstrated signs of deception. On monday, in a case called salinas v texas that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves, the supreme court held that you remain silent at your peril. Question: how did the 2013 supreme court case of salinas v texas change miranda rights answer: this is an interesting case when you look at salinas vtexas, it’s actually a case that i think really weakens miranda, in the fact that it allows the state or the government to use a person’s silence against them with miranda, you have the right to remain silent, and by remaining silent, it. Salinas v texas united states supreme court 570 us ___ (2013) facts salinas (defendant) agreed to go to the police station to answer questions about a murder salinas was not in custody and thus was not given miranda warnings salinas answered a number of questions, but was then asked if his shotgun would match the shells at the scene of.
Without being placed in custody or receiving miranda warnings, the defendant voluntarily answered questions about a murder he fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to casings found at the murder scene. Today, the supreme court issued its ruling in salinas v texas surprisingly, the court did not answer the primary question court watchers were expecting, which was whether a prosecutor can deride. Facts: two brothers were shot and killed in their home police recovered shotgun shells that led them to investigate the petitioner the petitioner handed over his gun and agreed to go to the police station for questioning. 2 v texas salinas syllabus because it is undisputed that he agreed to accompany the officers to the station and was free to leave at any time. Thank you for registering as a pre-law student with casebriefs™ as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the casebriefs™ lsat prep course.
Police in houston, texas questioned genovevo salinas in 1992 during a murder investigation salinas answered all of their questions until the police asked whether he thought that casings found at the murder scene would match the shotgun the police found in his house. Salinas appealed to the fourteenth court of appeals of texas, and they agreed with the lower court salinas appealed again to the court of criminal appeals of texas, whoyep, agreed with the. In the court of criminal appeals of texas no pd-0170-16 orlando salinas, appellant v the state of texas on appellant’s petition for discretionary review from the fourteenth court of appeals harris county k eller, pj, delivered the opinion of the court in which k easler, h ervey, a lcala, and w alker, jj, joined. Last week the united state supreme court handed down an opinion in an important fifth amendment case — salinas v texas the ruling in salinas was overshadowed by the court’s opinion in arizona v.
Salinas v texas by charles gillingham recently the united states supreme court decided a question regarding the fifth amendment that was unsettled: under what, if any, circumstances does the fifth amendment's self-incrimination clause protect a defendant's refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before she has been arrested or read her miranda rights. In salinas v texas , the justices raised the bar for criminal suspects seeking to invoke their constitutional right to remain silent the court held that remaining silent during police questioning without formally invoking the right can be used as evidence by prosecutors at trial, essentially requiring suspects to either use it or lose it. Other articles where salinas v texas is discussed: confession: confession in contemporary us law:berghuis, the court declared in salinas v texas (2013) that a criminal suspect who is not in police custody must expressly invoke his right to remain silent in order to be protected by it—notwithstanding the fact that he has not been informed (and thus may not know) that he has. The supreme court decided your silence can be used against you in a 5-4 ruling on salinas v texas in which the conservative members of the court and anthony kennedy determined that if you.