Document: 447 U.S. 231 100 S.Ct. 2124 65 L.Ed.2d 86 Dennis Seay JENKINS, Petitioner,v.Charles ANDERSON, Warden. No. 78-6809. Argued Jan. 8, 1980. Decided June 10, Syllabus * At his trial in a Michigan state court for first-degree murder, petitioner testified that he acted self-defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned about fact was not apprehended until surrendered to governmental authorities two weeks after killing, and closing argument again referred petitioner's prearrest silence, thereby attempting impeach credibility by suggesting would have spoken out if had killed Petitioner convicted of manslaughter, conviction affirmed courts sought habeas corpus relief Federal District Court, contending constitutional rights were violated when him concerning silence. The Court denied relief, Appeals affirmed. Held : 1. Fifth Amendment, as applied States through Fourteenth is use silence criminal defendant's credibility. While Amendment prevents prosecution from commenting on defendant who asserts right remain silent during trial, it testifies own defense impeached with prior Impeachment follows decision cast aside cloak advances truthfinding function trial. Cf.Raffel v. United States, 271 494, 46 566, 70 L.Ed. 1054; Harris New York, 401 222, 91 643, 28 1; Brown 356 148, 78 622, 2 589. Pp. 235-238. 2. Nor does deny fundamental fairness guaranteed Amendment. Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses be their previous failure circumstances which naturally been asserted. And each jurisdiction may formulate its rules evidence determine so inconsistent present statements impeachment reference such probative. In this case, no action induced before arrest, Doyle Ohio, 426 610, 96 2240, 49 91, inapplicable. 238-240. 6 Cir., 599 F.2d 1055, 3. A required allow Each free evidentiary defining situations viewed more probative than prejudicial. 240-241. Carl Ziemba, Detroit, Mich., petitioner. Robert A. Derengoski, Lansing, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 question case whether violates either or Constitution. August 13, 1974, stabbed Redding. turned himself later. contended killing 3 sister her boyfriend robbed Redding another man evening 12, 1974. petitioner, nearby robbery occurred, followed thieves short distance reported whereabouts police. According testimony, next day encountered Redding, accused informing police robbery. stated attacked knife, men struggled briefly, broke away. admitted struggle tried "[t]o push knife [Redding] far [I] could," App. 36, but maintained solely 4 During actions stabbing: 5 "Q. I suppose you waited Police tell them what happened? "A. No, didn't. 7 You didn't? 8 9 see. 10 "And how long arrested, taken into custody?" Id., at 33. 11 After some discussion date surrendered, continued: 12 When first time things told us today anybody? 13 Two days happened. 14 did report to? 15 To my probation officer. 16 Well, apart him? 17 No one. 18 Who? 19 one my— 20 (Interposing) Did ever go Officer anyone else? 21 22 As matter fact, later, wasn't it? 23 Yes." 34. 24 jury, noted "waited weeks, according testimony—at least anything surrendering reporting [the stabbing] anybody." 43. committed murder retaliation night before. 25 manslaughter sentenced years' imprisonment prison. conviction, Supreme leave appeal. then writ Eastern Michigan, Magistrate concluded petition should denied. adopted Magistrate's recommendation. Sixth Circuit 1055. This granted certiorari. 444 824, 45, 62 30 (1979). We now affirm.1 II 26 attempted contends prosecutor's guarantees an right. Griffin California, 380 609, 614, 85 1229, 1232, 106 (1965). course, throughout proceedings. Instead, voluntarily took witness stand defense. 27 Court's Raffel 1054 (1926), recognized twice. Government agent earlier made inculpatory statement. testify. ended deadlock repeated testimony second making Cross-examination revealed 495, n., S.Ct., 567, n. held inquiry proper because "[t]he immunity giving waive offering witness. . takes behalf, any other witness, within limits appropriate cross-examined ." 496-497, 568. Thus, "subject cross-examination impeaching just like witness." Grunewald 353 391, 420, 77 963, 982, 931 (1957).2 It can argued person facing arrest will speak later used him. But Constitution forbid "every government-imposed choice process effect discouraging exercise rights." Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 17, 30, 93 1977, 1984, 36 714 (1973). See Corbitt Jersey, 439 212, 218, 99 492, 497, 58 466 (1978). " 'threshold compelling election impairs appreciable extent policies behind involved.' supra, U.S., 32, 1985, quoting Crampton decided McGautha 402 183, 213, 1454, 1470, 711 (1971).3 explicitly rejected contention possibility impermissible burden upon rights. "We are unable see rule [an who] must testify fully, adds substantial manner inescapable embarrassment experience determining shall not." 499, 568.4 29 similarly defined scope protection inHarris (1971). There statement violation Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 1602, 694 (1966), Rejecting said: "Every privileged defense, refuse do so. privilege cannot construed include commit perjury. Having stand, under obligation truthfully accurately, here utilize traditional truth-testing devices adversary process." 225, 645, 646. 31 also Oregon Hass, 420 714, 721-723, 95 1215, 1220-1221, 43 570 (1975); Walder 347 62, 65, 74 354, 356, 98 503 (1954). 32 burdened impermissibly, consider legitimacy challenged practice. 20, 20. Attempted defendant, practice issue here, enhance reliability process. Use allows prosecutors test asking explain acts. decide take risk cross-examination. litigation tactics. Once decides testify, interests party regard justice ascertain truth become relevant, prevail balance considerations against self-incrimination." 156, 627, 589 (1958). 33 truth-finding conclude III 34 agree. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1042, p. 1056 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). For example, exercised supervisory powers over federal hold where prejudice might result. Hale, 422 171, 180-181, 2133, 2138-2139, 45 Stewart 366 1, 5, 81 941, 943, 84 (1961); 424, 984.5 35 Only (1976), we find received warnings 467-473, 1624-1627, arrested selling marihuana. time, subsequent framed. revealing remained arrest. State permissible, "the compels rejection State's position." 617, 2244. inform assure him, implicitly, Accordingly, 'it comport due permit call attention insist facts need do, unfavorable inference drawn testimony.' 619, 2245, 182-183, 2139-2140 (WHITE, J., concurring judgment).6 occurred custody given warnings. Consequently, unfairness case. violate IV 37 Our force remains merely judgment 38 Affirmed. 39 STEWART concurs judgment, agreeing all Part STEVENS judgment. 40 STEVENS, 41 My approach both claims differs Court's. reject claim compulsory self-incrimination1 simply irrelevant citizen's official compulsion speak. reasons dissenting 620, 91. 42 holds elects behalf waives objection purpose impeachment. correctly points out, holding squarely supported 1054, upheld retrial. Nevertheless, rely reliance incorrectly implies constitutionally indistinguishable precustody context.2 fundamentally different. context presume prohibit comment deter exercising privilege.3 central protect being compelled trial.4 Moreover, since typically based advice counsel, often could explained without communications between attorney client. 44 These application context. citizen bearing significance contact every duty infraction order justify drawing reasonable situation ordinary normally out.5 whatever, silent, reason why voluntary raise Amendment.6 applicable, position asserted privilege, silent. different view ignores clear words supra. admissibility come forward excuse self-defense shortly stabbing raised routine turns presented Constitution.7 620-626, 2245-2248, agree 479, 1630, contain implicit assurance defendant. ante, 239-240. actually acknowledged itself, 619-620, 11, 2245-2246, unqualified.8 continue disagree view, today, 240, there "fundamental Doyle." using postarrest purposes depend Rather, primarily depends fair infer asserting privilege.9 event, unpersuaded rationale Doyle,10 readily concur similar 47 opinion. 48 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. Today confess part offense. thus strikes blow foundation stones our system: self-incrimination 50 extraordinarily broad. goes beyond simple common-law permitting introduction face accusation calling response self-incrimination. doubt accused's forcing volition, indicted, charged, even offense, volunteer version events. 51 three patent—and, fatal—defects. First, mere unlikely falsity contrary Due Process Clause Second, adverse incriminating impermissibly infringes Third, availability burdens one's 52 depends, majority recognizes, 238, reasonableness impeached. If make likely false, irrelevant. Such fairly charges brought, admit homicide, offer exculpatory explanation. 53 explanation self-defense, necessarily fatally victim, supplying strongest possible proof essential element homicide. hard imagine purer Since assume absence individuals ignorant oblivious rights, recognize guarantee. most informed previously self-incrimination, felony convictions. 28. One twice warnings, carry implied promise penalized purposes, well remember informed, believe still force. conduct precluded. supra; 176-177, 2136-2137, (1975).1 54 explanations spring mind. conceivable crime therefore Indeed, agreed victim ran across street climbed flight stairs collapsing. Initially, least, then, known homicide explain. feared went persuaded these represents true plausible hypotheses vitiates depends. 180, 2138. 55 consistent common law; admissable contradict only called response. considered tacit admission party's presence heard understood party, liberty respond, response, failed respond.2 Silence prerequisites absent, assent. Similarly, assert natural, circumstances, fact. authority cited support proposition, 239, makes invoked unless affirmatively show speak, case.3 observed, "[i]n ambiguous little force." 176, 2136. 56 unfair deprivation jury draw false. B 57 secured Amendments. prohibits government imposing citizens themselves wrongdoing. See, e. g., Marchetti 390 39, 88 697, 889 (1968); Grosso 709, 906 Haynes 85, 722, 923 Albertson SACB, 382 70, 194, 165 explained, inevitably incriminate crucial prosecution. penalize failing relinquish place privilege. practical effect, replaces oneself. attempts avoid conclusion threaten underlying 236. direct.4 sophistry infringe chooses 238. An absolute He forced choose those guarantees. ignore commands brought difficulties precious piously proclaim individual liberties extend prosecution's chief while ensuring back door. 226-232, 646-649, (1971) (BRENNAN, dissenting). 59 reasoning saved (1926). testifying retrial, disclose wrongly decided; cases, expressly overruling it, limited severely appear rob continued vitality resurrection today. (1957), read advantage taking "becomes subject 982. carefully pointed Raffel, focus involved credibility." Ibid. logical underpinnings cut away almost completely (1965).5 Thus majority's silence," 235, simplistic overbroad. 60 Further, unfairly exclude countenance 237-238. quotes contradictory times. infer, absent contrary, lying occasion other. Here statement, basis conjure up specter C 61 Finally, protected Under today's moment must, deciding account permitted add omission disbelieving means thinks done something wrong immediately decide, assistance whether, charged offense wish stand. want better station preserve events—even though doing provide eventual conviction. himself, anticipate undermined story probably untrue earliest opportunity. All strategic decisions knows accused. 63 persons kind places intolerable "It cuts down [of defense] assertion costly," 1233, forbidden. 64 events impermissible. emerging conception individual's assist obtaining convictions, including own—a which, believe, odds system. Roberts 445 552, 569-572, 1358, 1369-1370, 622 (1980) (MARSHALL, disparages freedoms, social interest preserving integrity important enabling obtain serve Nation subordinating safeguards syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. state-court respondent argues Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 594 (1977), bars consideration petition. Sykes Appeals. Ordinarily, below. Dorszynski 418 431, 7, 94 3042, 3047, 855 (1974). Considerations judicial efficiency demand reaches applicability "cause"-and-"prejudice" turn interpretation law. Rummel Estelle, 263, 267, 1133, 1135, (1980). resolution state-law aided significantly views possess greater familiarity Furthermore, standard factual findings district court. invocation chose reach clearly permits unconstitutionally argue mitigation punishment risking incrimination guilt. speaks fully. matters reasonably related direct examination. Walker, 161 591, 597-598 [16 644, 819] (1896); Fitzpatrick 178 304, 314-316 [20 944, 948, 1078] (1900); 148 [78 589] thought overly harsh require determination generally convictions like. Spencer Texas, 385 [554, 561, 87 648, 652, 606 (1967)]; cf. Michelson 335 469 [69 168] (1948); Luck 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 763 (1965); Palumbo, 270 (CA2 1968)." 215, 1471. offended capital yields pressure damaging guilt." 217, 1472. Subsequently, rehearing vacated Eighth grounds. 408 92 2873, 765 (1972). Both post, 241-242, 2, 252, suggest 175, 4, 2136, (1975), declined question. (1961), grounds, 421, re-examine Raffel. law, sufficiently admissible. infra. MARSHALL Post, 248-250. proceeding relevance 181, 2139. MARSHALL's further relies Hale. 246-250. Hale rested nonconstitutional otherwise distinguishable, infra, 240. reached result Johnson 318 189, 549, 704 (1943). judge mistakenly commented refusal power, comments constituted error assured protections "[e]lementary requires misled score." 197, 553; 618, 9, 9. Raley 360 423, 437-438, 79 1257, 1265-1267, 1344 (1959). provides pertinent part: "No serious continuing 199, 554, "grants prejudice, disregard matter. That procedure potentialities oppressive sanction powers." 415-424, 979-984, prosecutor, cross-examining grand cases value outweighed jury; 420-421, 981-983. Because negligible credibility, "not faced necessity stripped reexamining Raffel." Black, writing four Justices, overruled "think special discredit convict it. privileges largely destroyed relying them." 425, 984-985. 5-7, 943-944, 84; 99. "For remnant 'inquisitorial system justice,' Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 55, [84 1594, 1596, 678,] outlaws. penalty imposed costly." (footnote omitted). "The protects trials. expression presumed innocent, proving guilt resorting inquisition accused." Lefkowitz Cunningham, 431 801, 810, 2132, 2138, (STEVENS, dissenting) itself predicated assumption innocent found guilty they Every lawyer truthful denials incredible jury—either inherent improbability explanation, reveal associates. gives himself." Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 343, 1091, 1096-1097, 319 is, encourage conceal activity knowledge. 557-558, 1363, out: "Concealment condemned history. 'raise "hue cry" felonies authorities,' Branzburg Hayes, 665, 696 [92 2646, 2664, 626] (1972), established tenet Anglo-Saxon early 13th century. W. Holdsworth, History English Law 101-102 (3d ed. 1927); id., 521-522; Statute Westminster Edw. ch. (1275); chs. 6, pp. 112-115 (1285). Congress enacted statute penalties who, 'having knowledge actual commission [certain felonies,] conceal, soon same appropriate] authority. .' Act Apr. 1790, Stat. 113. Although term 'misprision felony' archaic ring, gross indifference behavior badge irresponsible citizenship. "This deeply rooted diminished illicit activities himself. Unless less obliged authorities." (Footnote omitted.) "Petitioner insists inferences singularly unpersuasive. self-executing. requested disclosures incriminating, relied timely fashion." 559, 1364. approach, assuming relevance, rebuttal interesting note share create unavailable defendants' purposes. 247-248, not, however, admissible rests premise quiet 250-251, 4. dog's bark trained watchdog. Cf. Conan Doyle, Silver Blaze, Complete Sherlock Holmes (1938). Generally, express presumption exercised. 559-560, me anomalous that, survived deemed pretrial much focussed, hence weaker, objection. Perhaps best good rationale. E. Cleary, McCormick 161, 355-356 (2d 1972). furnishing silent; conferred interrogated receiving inadmissible despite lack situation, "insolubly ambiguous." properly considered, single narcotics agent, analytically indistinguishable, became certainty existence renders plainly prejudicial probativeness "a law." Ante, n.5. supra n.1, §§ 270; 1071, 1072 (J. Chadbourn 1970); Gamble, Tacit Admission Rule: Unreliable Unconstitutional—A Doctrine Ripe Abandonment, Ga.L.Rev. (1979); Brody, Admissions Implied Silence, Evasion Equivocation Massachusetts Criminal Cases, B.U.L.Rev. (1962); Heller, Acquiescence, U.Miami L.Rev. (1960); Note, Admissions, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 210 (1963). Wigmore treatise lists categories impeachment: "(1) Omissions legal proceedings circumstances. "(2) formerly narrating, elsewhere, dealt with. "(3) Failure all. 1056-1058 (footnotes omitted, emphasis original). Plainly, seek opportunity included categories. Of involving involves suspect enforcement officers. STEVENS' incomprehensible. Apparently, person's exists already compel 243-244 (opinion judgment). officials get evidently civic applicable "voluntary." 244. prohibition way expressing Burr, F.Cas. 38, (No. 14,692e) (CC Va.1807) ("It settled maxim bound criminate himself"). all, not. course "raise Amendment," 244 judgment), implicate compelled. impose bringing play. And, (1965), plain, burdening oneself penalizing heavily severe sentence information persons. Roberts' grounds inapplicable case: "At 1364; 565-566, 1367-1368 BLACK's Members Grunewald, rather powers, eloquently foreshadowed "I think them. seems peculiarly incongruous indefensible exist act honesty worthy enshrinement Constitution." 425-426, 984-985, (1957).

Category: 0