Document: 474 U.S. 284 106 S.Ct. 634 88 L.Ed.2d 623 Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Petitionerv.David Wayne GREENFIELD. No. 84-1480. Argued Nov. 13, 1985. Decided Jan. 14, 1986. Syllabus On three occasions shortly after his arrest in for sexual battery, respondent was given Miranda warnings, and each instance he exercised right to remain silent stated that wished speak with an attorney before answering any questions. Respondent later pleaded not guilty by reason insanity, the closing arguments trial court, prosecutor, over defense counsel's objection, reviewed police officer testimony as on which had silent, suggested respondent's repeated refusals answer questions without first consulting demonstrated a degree comprehension inconsistent claim insanity. Respondent's subsequent conviction affirmed Court Appeal, held general rule precluding prosecutorial comment defendant's exercise did apply case insanity plea filed. then unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief Federal District Court, but Appeals reversed, holding under reasoning Doyle v. Ohio, 426 610, 96 2240, 49 91, entitled new trial. Held: The prosecutor's use postarrest, post-Miranda warnings silence evidence sanity violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 289-295. (a) In Doyle, supra, it impeachment defendants' exculpatory asking them cross-examination why they explained their conduct at time fundamentally unfair therefore Clause. source unfairness implicit assurance contained will carry no penalty. 289-291. (b) There is merit argument does control this because proof significantly different from commission underlying offense. point promise arrested person be used against him thereafter breach using impeach testimony. It equally overcome South Dakota Neville, 459 553, 103 916, 74 748, distinguished. 292-293. (c) should suspect's evidenced silence, far more probative than offense, also unpersuasive. Such fails meet problem fundamental flows State's its implied assurances. 293-294. (d) A legitimate interest proving behavior appeared rational can served carefully framed avoid mention constitutional rights consult counsel. 294-295. 741 F.2d 329 (CA11 1984), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, filed concurring result, BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 296. Ann Garrison Paschall, Tampa, Fla., petitioner. James D. Whittemore, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 entered charge battery. At Circuit Sarasota County, Florida, prosecutor argued receiving sanity. question presented whether such violates Amendment construed 91 (1976). 2 * battery occurred woods near beach vicinity Sarasota, Florida. After released victim, she drove directly station report incident. Based her description, Officer Pilifant identified placed about two hours assault occurred. handcuffing him, gave required our decision Arizona, 384 436, 467-473, 86 1602, 1624-1627, 16 694 (1966). Specifically, stated: 3 "You have silent. Anything you say court law. You talk lawyer present while are being questioned. If cannot afford hire one appointed represent questioning if wish. decide these or make statements. Do understand I you? Having mind do wish us now?" App. 73. 4 replied stating understood wanted making statement. were driving reiterated Detective Jolley arrived station. Each asked "if give up silent," declined, attorney. 77. 5 Under law, when defendant pleads sufficient raise reasonable doubt sanity, State has burden beyond doubt.1 chief, introduced Jolley. They described expressed desire counsel Both officers several colloquies defense, testify, psychiatrists paranoid schizophrenic who been unable distinguish wrong alleged rebuttal, relied third psychiatrist contrary opinion. 6 argument, insanity.2 jury found judge sentenced life imprisonment. 7 By 2-to-1 vote, Appeal Second conviction. Greenfield State, 337 So.2d 1021 noting "prosecutorial relating insistence generally constitutes reversible error," id., 1022, majority dissenting application would prejudiced prosecution "questions answers could couched manner permit convey fact appellant carried perfectly conversation specifically chose avail himself silent." Id., 1023. 8 Supreme granted petition certiorari summarily remanded reconsideration light Clark 363 331 (1978), improper error reviewable appeal adequate contemporaneous objection made either comment. 364 885 (1978). reconsideration, adhered earlier decision. 9 exhausted state remedies, writ referred Magistrate. issue barred failed objection. Magistrate concluded federal review foreclosed objected rejected merits. Magistrate, however, agreed courts' disposition merits recommended denied. accepted recommendation.3 10 United States Eleventh reversed. (1984). Disagreeing other Courts Appeals4—but position taken decided see Burwick, 442 944 (1983), cert. denied, 466 931, 104 1719, 80 191 (1984)—the (1976), We agree. II 11 defendants witness stand offered explanation participation what portrayed routine marihuana transaction. impeached arrest. 12 "that penalty."5 critical importance conveyed repeatedly confirmed decisions. Thus, Fletcher Weir, 455 603, 606, 102 1309, 1311, 71 490 (1982), we explained: 13 "In Jenkins [v. Anderson, 447 231, 100 2124, 65 (1980) ], post-Doyle cases, consistently where government induced implicitly assuring him. Roberts States, 445 552, 561 [100 1358, 1364, 63 622] (1980), observed postconviction, presentencing resemble 'postarrest may assurances warnings.' Jenkins, noted failure involved into custody commenting governmental action 239-240 S.Ct., 2129-2130]. Finally, Anderson Charles, 404, 407-408 2180, 2181-2182, 222] 'Miranda inform assure least implicitly, . bars criminal maintained receipt assurances.' " 14 Since Fletcher, moreover, continued reiterate view rests "the suspect subsequently trial." 565, 923, 748 (1983).6 cases thus clear breaching affront fairness requires.7 15 Attorney General argues due process rationale apply. outset, note that, case, unlike progeny, affirmative impeachment.8 viewed "affirmative defense," impeachment. Without accepting characterization defense,9 address analysis prevent defense. find warrant claimed distinction cases. both situations, gives protect promises those penalized. seeks obtaining promise, breach, consequent penalty identical situations. 17 argues, introduction Constitution reference refusal take blood-alcohol test supra. challenge—and attempt rely Doyle—because important differences between silence. optional test, dimension. U.S., 923. warning (which expressly advised Neville deprive privileges), contain suspect. 565-566, 923-924. elements—the dimension prove Unlike therefore, like received sort forgo unfairly 'trick' [him] 566, 924.10 18 further contends He reliance "insolubly ambiguous" character opinion, 617, 2244, inappropriate context need evaluate value reject argument.11 For ambiguity merely added weight Court's principal rationale, rested warning. See 564-565, 923-924; 239-240, 2129-2130, (1980).12 General's entirely 19 vitally able offense thereafter. However, recognized very avoided counsel.13 What impermissible evidentiary individual's invocation 20 rooted Constitution, "silence penalty." 618, 2245. Our conclusion Ohio requires conclude officers' sanity.14 21 judgment 22 so ordered. whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, result. 23 agree shields even though addressed write separately, out follow Appeals, took same position, reached correct That expanded cover requests counsel, ignored upon commented admitted Analyzed terms, Appeals' "error" harmless suspect: portion statement amounted large part unobjectionable view, officer's already jury, concur result today comments, however brief, argue here doubt. said: 24 "The mandated [Miranda ] require immediately anything says retained submitting interrogation. Silence wake nothing arrestee's rights. every post-arrest insolubly ambiguous advise arrested. Moreover, true express penalty, receives warnings. circumstances, deprivation allow person's 617-618, 2244-2245 (footnotes omitted). 25 propriety cross-examining following Here assumed, analysis, statements lawyer, treated disagree. deemed ambiguous"—the indicating relying Similarly, request essentially guilt innocence: No sensible draw inference told one; simply only want questioned police. 26 But highly relevant based "insoluble ambiguity" request; straightforward tending show individual incoherent obviously confused unbalanced. While plainly conclusive coherent responsive crime, certainly relevant.* 27 Nor "unfairness" prong penalty," bar lawyer. respondent: law." logical corollary warning—that him—is cannot. 28 Pilifant's description differently: 29 wish." Ibid. 30 read foregoing containing implied, words responding notice rebut absence surely "tricked" way "fundamentally unfair." 31 believe attorney, effort defeat works "penalty" condemned Doyle. Inviting guilt, separates mass society, thing; inviting rationality, places together quite another. during questioning, derivative 469-470, 1625-1626, (1966), unconstitutionally burdened ability wrong. 32 Turning less "challenged portion" Appeals. consists statement: 33 "Let's go stand, psychiatrists, never heard about, talked to. states saw fellow [respondent] went voluntarily put arms behind back said car. This supposedly insane throws [sic] acute condition paranoia time. goes car reads Does doesn't them? 'What's going on?' 'I my you. attorney.' Again occasion knows what's around surroundings, consequences act. Even down—as down [to] recollect Pil[i]fant meant guy said—and Mr. appreciate thanks lot telling me that.' And didn't know doing act, station, according Jolley—He's there. says, 'Have your rights?' 'Yes, have.' 'Do talk?' 'No.' attorney?' 'Yes.' again speak. another physical overt indication defendant. 34 35 "So must consideration innocence, regards insanity." 96-98. 36 describes, arresting officer, pre-arrest (1982). When rights, silent; 37 "I [And then] that." 38 Thus either. understands (and appreciates informed about) largely irrelevant most defenses, 39 summation can, violate following: 40 "[E]ven He's speak." 41 warning's "implied assurance" 42 determination apparent all 43 strongly [respondent's] sanity; lengthy challenged minor. doubt." 329, 336 (1984) (emphasis added). 44 above, actually much smaller constitutionally objectionable. evaluating minute extract harmless, think factor apparently considered come there consider own regardless ever mentioned it. fact, brevity comment, suggests Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 94 396, 368 (1973); Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 1868, 431 (1974). As points out, ante, 295, n. contested harmless. Accordingly, Farrell 101 130, 133 (Fla.1958) ("when presumption [of sanity] vanishes. acquittal doubt"), cited 1021, 1023, (Fla.App.1976). argued, part: "He 'what's object Magistrate's rehearing Circuit, renewed Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594 (1977). advances concluded, appellate clearly argument. Ulster County Allen, 140, 149, 99 2213, 2220, 60 777 (1979); Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 704, n., 95 1881, 1892, 508 (1975) (REHNQUIST, concurring). Cf. Franks Delaware, 438 154, 161-162, 98 2674, 2679-2680, 57 667 (1978); Raley 360 423, 436-437, 79 1257, 1265-1266, 1344 (1959); Manhattan Life Insurance Co. Cohen, 234 123, 134, 874, 877, 58 L.Ed. 1245 (1914). Sulie Duckworth, 689 128 (CA7 1982), 460 1043, 1439, 75 796 (1983); Trujillo, 578 285 (CA10), 439 858, 175, 166 "Moreover, Hale, [422 U.S.], 182-183 [95 2139-2140], well: '[W]hen informed, requires, wishes, seems comport call attention insist facts time, do, unfavorable might drawn truth Surely Hale well words, Indeed, anyone reasonably case.' 618-619, 2245 422 171, 2133, 45 (1975), prosecutions. supervisory power proceedings left open question. WHITE's concurrence process, adopted "fundamental unfairness" derives supported holdings pre-Miranda arrest, statements, 222 (1980); nor involve Miranda-like Neville. Notably, contention Fifth privilege self-incrimination Griffin California, 380 609, 85 1229, (1965) (Fifth prohibits testify). violation especially egregious because, risk exclusion [would] provide shield perjury." 626, 2248 (STEVENS, dissenting). 1, To extent Neville' § holding, inapposite Clause, note, share context. wrote 944, 948 (1983): "Post-arrest, dubious many explanations 180, 2138. Contrary intimates, ambiguities attendant suddenly disappear mental brought issue. problems us. example, custodial interrogation intimidate mentally unstable Likewise, emotionally disturbed thought choose sum, just induces post-arrest, remains mystery face accusation enigma determinative one's guilt. permitted confirm Burwick's silence." Several commentators emphasized particularly Doyle's probativeness secondary rationale. See, e.g., Note, Protecting Rights Charles: Problem Partial Silence, 69 Va.L.Rev. 155, 165, 56 Clark, Impeachment With Post-Arrest Silence: Emergence "New Federalism" Approach, Am.Crim.L.Rev. 751, 759 (1982); 1979 Term, Harv.L.Rev. 77, 84-85 (1980). Circuit's directed "defendant's silence," 333 (1984), erroneous, 336. legitimately inquire "purely 'demeanor' 'behavior' evidence." Brief 14. respect "silence," mean muteness; includes until consulted. number decisions, addition Commonwealth Mahdi, 388 Mass. 679, 448 N.E.2d 704 People Vanda, 111 Ill.App.3d 551, 67 Ill.Dec. 373, 444 609 464 841, 136, 78 130 Schindler, 114 Cal.App.3d 178, 170 Cal.Rptr. 461 be, suggests, purposes "by righ[t] counsel," ----. done things differently, render unconstitutional quotation precise effective means disproving references "rationality" "responsiveness."

Category: 0