- The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent.
The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.
Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.
Agreed, seems kind of backwards to me. I always thought the Miranda warning was put in place so that no-one could plead ignorance, not as a "your rights start now" type of thing. But on the flipside, by my understanding, I don't think you have a general right to remain silent; I think it's specifically related to court cases. (Don't quote me on that)