This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Two brothers were shot and killed. A neighbor saw someone run out of the house and speed away in a dark-colored car. Police recovered six shotgun shell casings at the scene. The investigation led police to D. Police visited D at his home, where they saw a dark blue car in the driveway. D agreed to hand over his shotgun for ballistics testing and to accompany police to the station for questioning. The interview was noncustodial. D answered the officer’s questions. But when asked whether his shotgun “would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder,” D declined to answer. D “looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up.” After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which D answered. D was arrested on outstanding traffic warrants. D was released. A few days later, police obtained a statement from a man who said he had heard D confess to the killings. P charge D, but by this time he had absconded. In 2007, police discovered D. D did not testify at trial. Over his objection, P used his reaction to the officer’s question during the 1993 interview as evidence of his guilt. D was found guilty. On appeal, D argued that P's use of his silence violated the Fifth Amendment. It held that D’s prearrest, pre-Miranda silence was not “compelled” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on the same ground. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.