WASHINGTON -- 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.

The high court upheld that decision.

The Fifth Amendment protects Americans against forced self-incrimination, with the Supreme Court saying that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant's refusal to testify at trial. The courts have expanded that right to answering questions in police custody, with police required to tell people under arrest they have a right to remain silent without it being used in court.

Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions – therefore not invoking his right to silence – and since he wasn't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection.

Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'"

"Why, yes! I would like to cooperate! After I have spoken to an attorney. Am I free to go?"

We granted certiorari to decide whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination prohibits a prosecutor from using a defendant's pre-custodial silence as evidence of his guilt. The plurality avoids reaching that question and instead concludes that Salinas' Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege. I think there is a simpler way to resolve this case. In my view, Salinas' claim would fail even if he had invoked the privilege because the prosecutor's comments regarding his precustodial silence did not compel him to give self-incriminating testimony.

I was under the impression that one's Constitutional rights are always with you. But the Supreme Court's word is case law. I think it is clear by now that the Bill of Rights needs to be reinforced, and include some means of enforcing itself.

What, precisely, would a 5th Amendment right that is "always with you" look like, in your eyes? And, interestingly enough, the courts have significantly expanded many of the protections of the BOR, but when they scale back some of those expansions (which, IMO, did not happen in this case), we fall back on the old saw of the courts constantly curtailing rights. We forget such things as the silver platter doctrine, and the fact that, when the founding fathers drafted the constitution, none of this was supposed to apply to state and local government.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

If it was meant to be binding, then wouldn't the express nature of the first amendment implicitly mean that states were not bound to that particular amendment?

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.