You’ve heard it in movies, on TV, maybe even in real life: “You have the right to remain silent.” But what does that really mean in practice—and what happens if you don’t say the magic words just right? The Arizona Supreme Court tackled exactly that question in its recent decision in State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez, CR-23-0215-PR (Ariz. Mar. 28, 2025).
As a criminal defense attorney, I was concerned when I first heard about this case. I thought the court might be chipping away at one of the most fundamental protections in our system. But once I read the opinion, I saw that the real issue was something more nuanced—and something that everyone should understand.
What Happened in Melendez?
Melendez was questioned by police about a serious crime. During his first police interview, he was Mirandized—meaning he was told he had the right to remain silent—and he clearly invoked that right. As a result, the interview stopped. So far, so good.
Later, however, a detective came back, re-Mirandized him, and began another round of questioning. This time, Melendez began to talk. When the detective reached the heart of the case, Melendez tried to hedge. He didn’t invoke his right again. Instead, he said things like, “I’ll hold off on that,” or “I’m not ready to answer that yet.” Eventually, he did answer those same questions.
The prosecutor later used those answers to impeach him at trial, and the Arizona Supreme Court said that was fair game.
The Court’s Reasoning
Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the right to remain silent must be invoked clearly and unambiguously. The Arizona Supreme Court found that Melendez’s responses didn’t qualify. He never said he was invoking his right. In fact, he waived it by answering other questions. Once you start talking, that waiver can stick.
The Court also emphasized that it wasn’t Melendez’s “silence” that the prosecutor used against him—it was his statements. Since he ultimately did answer the questions, the Court found that using those answers didn’t violate his constitutional rights.
Why This Case Matters
This case doesn’t change the basic law—but it does highlight a huge trap for people who don’t understand how the right to remain silent works in practice.
> The law doesn’t recognize soft no’s. If you want to remain silent, you have to say it clearly—and stick to it.
Too often, people think they can talk their way out of trouble. But in my experience:
– At best, talking to the police does *nothing* to help your case.
– At worst, it gives the state ammunition to use against you in court.
Melendez thought he was hedging, buying time. Instead, he gave the prosecution exactly what they needed to undermine him.
The Advice I Give Everyone
If the police ever try to question you, here’s what you should say:
> “I’m invoking my right to remain silent, and I want an attorney.”
Then stop talking. No explanations. No clarifications. No exceptions. That is the safest and strongest way to protect your rights.
Final Thoughts
The Melendez decision should be a wake-up call: your rights are only as strong as your understanding of how to use them. If you’re ever in doubt, silence—and a good lawyer—are your best defense.
If you’ve been questioned by police, or you’re facing criminal charges in Arizona, don’t wait.
Call The Law Office of Joel Chorny, PLLC today to schedule a strategy meeting and protect your rights from the start.
—
Joel Chorny is a criminal defense attorney in Tucson, Arizona, and the founder of The Law Office of Joel Chorny, PLLC. He represents people facing serious felony charges and is committed to educating the public about their civil liberties.
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal assistance, consult with a qualified criminal defense attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
#ChornyLaw #KnowYourRights #RemainSilent #MirandaRights #CriminalDefense #ArizonaLaw #StatevMelendez #LegalAdvice #CivilLiberties
