Document: 364 U.S. 471 81 S.Ct. 245 5 L.Ed.2d 222 Leonard Ewing SCOTTv.CALIFORNIA. No. 241, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States December 5, 1960 Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1961. See 944, 462. Morris Lavine, for appellant. Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen. California, William E. James, Asst. Gen., B. McKesson and Lewis Watnick, appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to dismiss is granted appeal dismissed. Treating papers whereon was taken as a petition certiorari, certiorari denied. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 3 salient facts in this case are related 176 Cal.App.2d 458, Cal.Rptr. 600. A reading report shows that entire evidence against defendant circumstantial. It not even shown directly his wife, whom he now convicted murdering, dead. Proof corpus delicti, well proof petitioner's criminal agency, inferred from wife's inexplicable disappearance coupled with unnatural behavior thereafter. prominent aspect silence. At trial, petitioner did take stand. trial judge accord California law charged jury follows: 4 'It constitutional right may be compelled testify. Thus, whether or does testify rests entirely own decision. As any him which can reasonably expected deny explain because within knowledge, if testify, fact into consideration tending indicate truth such indicating among inferences drawn therefrom those unfavorable more probable. failure not, however, create presumption guilt by itself warrant an inference guilt, nor it relieve prosecution its burden proving every essential element crime beyond reasonable doubt.' (Italics added.) Using defendant's silence one way having himself. This would permitted, we have assumed, federal reason Fifth Amendment. Adamson v. 332 46, 50, 67 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903. That rule, embodied statute, has much history behind it. Wilson States, 149 60, 13 765, 37 650. Its value protecting interests accused stated Bruno 308 287, 294, 60 198, 200, 84 257, where said: 6 'To suggestion benefits who fails stand attention directed fact, suffices say that, however difficult exercise enlightened self-interest, should allowed make choice when Act Congress authorizes choose. And urged psychological impossibility arise minds jurors short answer legislated on contrary assumption without support experience. decide what deemed legally significant psychologically futile. Certainly, despite vast accumulation data, yet attained certitude about human mind justify us disregarding will dogmatic jurors, properly admonished, neither could heed instructions court witness cause 'shall him." see Johnson 318 189, 199, 63 549, 87 704. 7 1947 held Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause incorporate (Adamson supra), result him. I dissented continue believe wrong. present how utterly devastating state rule sanctions be. accordingly note probable jurisdiction.

Category: 0