The Case and the Fifth Amendment
The case at hand touches on two key issues of the law which are: Fifth Amendment of the constitution and Miranda rights as enshrined in the constitution. The ruling of the court leaves so many unanswered questions on to what extent and how should an individual exercise his or her Miranda rights?
Salina decides to keep quiet when questioned by the police on whether the casings that were recovered at the murder scene matched with the shotgun that was found by the police in his house. Prior to this question, Salina had been answering all the other questions smoothly without coercion and all over a sudden he decides to remain silent on this one particular question which seems very critical for police investigations. That reaction of going silent when this particular question is asked gives leeway for the police to presuppose that the accused might have had something to do with the murder. If Salina wanted to fully exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege to protect himself against self-incrimination, he ought not to have responded to previous questions or at least inform the police that he was not ready to answer the question because it was his right enshrined in the constitution.
Ruling and Coercive Questioning
According to the evidence read regarding the case, the judges got it right in their ruling. The accused could have responded to the officer's question by claiming his right against self-incrimination as enshrined in the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, questioning of Salina by the police was done before the official arrest also called Miranda and it was coercive.
Ignorance of the Law
When it comes to law ignorance is no defense since everyone is given an equal chance to understand the law.
Reference
Supreme Court of the United States (2013). Salina vs. Texas case.
