This is one of those 'totality of the circumstances' things. In this case,I don't see anything wrong with the Court's decision.
Mr Salinas answered questions freely until the question might have implicated him.
Mr Salinas refused to answer that question.
Mr Salinas' physical reactions to that question were noted.
Mr Salinas answered other following questions.
In Court, Mr Salinas' actions when questioned were presented. It's not unreasonable that a man who suddenly and inexplicably refuses to answer questions that might point to his guilt might be of guilty conscience. It's not that he remained silent, but that he suddenly changed from cooperative to silent on specific questions.
You are free not to answer any particular question, or any questions at all, but until the police have been put on notice that you wish to remain silent, they aren't required to take notice of your silence and may continue to ask.
What's the old adage, "Silence gives consent"?, if you don't say that you won't answer questions they are free to assume that you don't mind them asking even if they don't get answers.
Dare we allow government to take back that ground?
It took almost six hundred years from the Norman Conquest to recognition of the right against self-incimination. Along the way, people were burned, hanged, pilloried, dispossessed of property, and exiled.
In Tudor England*, when government suspected a person of religious non-conformity, he was examined
ex officio. Meaning, church officials came "out" of their "office" as church officials, and became interrogators. The suspect was required to swear the
oath ex officio--to tell the truth to every question before knowing what the questioning was even going to be about. Oaths were taken a lot more seriously then, and for some, lying under oath meant damnation. Here's where the history connects: if a person refused the oath, he was convicted on the spot
pro confesso. That is to say, as if he had confessed. The rationale: if he was innocent, he should have no reservations about answering questions truthfully.
Its only one short step back to silence being considered guilt, conviction
pro confesso.
In our country today, there are already tons of people who think the 5th Amendment is a refuge for the guilty. They do not know skillful questioning and twisted answers can be used to distort and present the apparency of guilty; it never even crosses their mind.
Dare we let government take back a piece of the ground that was purchased very dearly indeed, literally with blood and treasure?
Note: Recognition of the right by government in England didn't happen until about 1650 between Charles I and Charles II. Even today we get weasel decisions out of our courts. For example, there is a court case floating around somewhere that says the right against self-incrimination is a "fighting right", meaning the suspect has to invoke it. Yeah, suuuure. Only because government
refused to recognize it more fully. Government only conceded as much as it had to, nothing more. It is a "fighting right" because government made it so, rather than just respect it even when the suspect doesn't "fight" with it.
For comparison and perspective, consider ancient Hebrew courts where nothing--nothing!--said by the suspect could be used in evidence against him. There was no weaseling around about whether the suspect had been properly Mirandized, or had answered some questions and then stopped. Flat out, front to back, nothing the suspect said could be used against him. Period. No loopholes for prosecutors or cops to exploit and chisel away at everybody's rights after that. Nothing the suspect said could be used against him. The courts would not allow it. How's that for government recognition of a right?
Most of the history I've given in this post comes from a Pulitzer Prize winning book by Leonard Levy,
Origins of the Fifth Amendment, the Right Against Self-Incrimination.
