Dramatizing Supreme Court decisions poses many risks
There is danger in making political headlines sound more significant than they are. This week’s example comes from an article published by Slate that attempts to scare the living daylights out of Americans by criticizing a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the Fifth Amendment, which outlines, among other things, an American citizen’s right to not be compelled to testify against him or herself.
University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett disagreed with the Supreme Court’s limitation. In an article thunderously headlined, “You Don’t Have the Right to Remain Silent,” Garrett described the ruling as “terrible — and dangerous.”
Garrett is wrong. His article also demonstrates the problem of writing “click bait” headlines (flashy and provactive captions to elicit more traffic) about serious political issues.
The Supreme Court decided Salinas v. Texas last Monday. Here are the facts: Genovevo Salinas was charged with a double homicide in Texas in 1993. Before he was charged, he voluntarily agreed to answer questions at the Houston police department. During the questioning, Salinas provided an answer to every question until he was asked if his shotgun would match the bullet casings found at the crime scene.
He then became suspiciously quiet, and his demeanor changed. He was released briefly but charged with the murder several days later. By then, he had disappeared. He was arrested 14 years later in 2007, and his first trial was ruled a mistrial. During the second trial, the judge ruled that his refusal to answer the question in 1993 about the shotgun casings could be described to the jury and used as evidence against him. A ballistics report also proved that the bullets found at the scene did in fact match Salinas’ gun. He was then convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Salinas appealed the conviction, arguing that the Fifth Amendment’s protection from testifying against oneself meant that the description of his behavior during the 1993 questioning shouldn’t have been discussed in court.
The Supreme Court disagreed in a 5-4 decision. Justice Alito wrote that any person being questioned must explicitly and verbally invoke the Fifth Amendment to be protected. A notable exception is that a defendant under coercion during questioning is given a reprieve from this requirement, but Salinas was never under coercion — he agreed to go to the station voluntarily. At trial, he submitted no evidence that the police coerced him during questioning.
Nevertheless, the crux of Professor Garrett’s argument in Slate on behalf of Salinas is that the Supreme Court’s limitation on the Fifth Amendment “encourages the kind of high-pressure questioning that can elicit false confessions.”
Salinas could have left the station at any time — in fact, he didn’t even have to agree to be questioned in the first place. Furthermore, if Salinas had evidence he was coerced, the decision likely would have been in his favor because of the coercion exception. Even Garrett admits later in his argument that police, to eliminate coercive interrogations, have begun videotaping the entire process — but he asserts that police will simply coerce a defendant before the camera starts rolling.
The way in which Garrett’s article is presented is also troubling. Blending serious political news with “click bait” headlines is dangerous, and the article is a textbook example. The headline, “You Don’t Have the Right to Remain Silent,” is absurd. Even worse, Garrett (and Slate) were so caught up in generating hits that they forgot about what their most important mission should be: helping future criminal defendants understand how their rights have changed, and how they can avoid being in the same unfortunate situation as Salinas. Instead, Slate oddly titled the article so as to apparently convince readers that the Fifth Amendment doesn’t exist anymore.
They should have devoted some time to informing readers of how their Fifth Amendment rights have changed. Put simply, during any interrogation, the ruling means that you must explicitly and verbally invoke your Fifth Amendment rights during any interrogation by the police. It might also do well to decline a voluntary visit to the police station if you know your shotgun is going to match the bullets found at the murder scene.
Nathaniel Haas is a junior majoring in economics and political science. His column, “State of the Union,” runs Fridays.