Document: 485 U.S. 25 108 S.Ct. 864 99 L.Ed.2d 23 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Thomas O. ROBINSON, Jr. No. 86-937. Argued Nov. 3, 1987. Decided Feb. 24, 1988. Syllabus At respondent's federal-court jury trial, which resulted in his conviction of counts mail fraud involving arson-related insurance claims, defense counsel urged several times closing argument that the Government had not allowed respondent (who did testify) to explain side story and unfairly denied him opportunity actions. Out jury's presence, prosecutor objected counsel's remarks contended "opened door" commenting upon failure testify. The judge agreed object. then, rebuttal summation, remarked "could have taken stand explained it you." Defense object request a cautionary instruction, but admonished no inference could be drawn from defendant's election Court Appeals reversed convictions, holding, inter alia, prosecutor's comment deprived fair trial under Fifth Amendment. Held: violate Amendment privilege free compulsory self-incrimination. court reasonably interpreted closing-argument mean either before or during trial. statement not, light comments, infringe rights. Where on own initiative asks draw an adverse silence, treat silence as substantive evidence guilt, Griffin v. California, 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106 holds against self-incrimination is violated. But where, this case, reference testify response claim made by defendant counsel, there violation privilege. Pp. 30-34. 794 F.2d 1132 (CA6 1986), reversed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed concurring part dissenting part, post, p. 34. MARSHALL, opinion, BRENNAN, joined, 37. KENNEDY, took consideration decision case. Lawrence S. Robbins, New York City, for petitioner. Carolou Perry Durham, Murfreesboro, Tenn., respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 During course Robinson's Middle District Tennessee, story. summation informed you. . ." App. 27. We hold guaranteed United States Constitution. 2 Following was convicted two fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341;1 both involved claims. at showed leased truckstop Guthrie, Kentucky, 1979. business deteriorated over next months. Two days after increased coverage explosion fire destroyed premises. A number unusual circumstances suggested arson. Respondent subsequently submitted $80,000. 3 Approximately one year later, home Clarksville, badly damaged arson hour departed California large truck filled with household furnishings. When interviewed investigators, setting house he removed furnishings take them daughter California. company proof loss $200,000, including $106,500 personal property claim. Certain included later discovered authorities home. 4 In jury, theme breached its "duty fair." Several different times, charged actions.2 Counsel concluded informing required testify, although would natural stand, should do so. 5 out presence prosecution door." agreed, stating: 6 ". I will tell you what, ties Government's hands terms tying putting into boxing match your tied behind back allowing punch face. 7 "That what intended fair. let say defendants every opportunity, if they wanted to, ladies gentlemen jury." 25. 8 9 short recess, gave summation. He began stating obligation "play fair" complied Specifically, stated: 10 "[Defense counsel] has comments extent explain. It totally unacceptable. 11 "He himself away tape right indictment. investigator, to. 12 you, anything America given him, throughout, explain." Id., 13 instruction. Nonetheless, instruction admonition "no whatever may testify." Tr. 694. Sixth Circuit finding "deprived 3481."3 716 1095, 1096, 1097 (1983) (citing (1965), Wilson States, 149 60, 765, 37 L.Ed. 650 (1893)). held because prosecution's been "direct," matter counsel. This granted certiorari, vacated judgment Appeals, remanded reconsideration Young, 470 1, 105 1038, 84 (1985). 1025, 1387, 778 There we improper prosecutor—in expressed belief guilty—did constitute reversible error standard properly applicable. On remand, divided panel reinstated prior judgment. (1986). 479 1083, 107 1282, 94 141 (1987), consider whether violated Amendment,4 so, constituted plain error. Because conclude constitutional all, reach plain-error issue. 15 supra, defendant, who testified, found guilty first-degree murder. emphasized victim just her demise, only person provide information certain details related murder, yet, " 'not seen fit deny explain.' U.S., 611, S.Ct., 1231. accordance Constitution, instructed unfavorable facts within knowledge about chose 610, 1230-31. ruling impermissibly infringed remain silent: 16 "[Comment refusal testify] penalty imposed courts exercising cuts down making assertion costly. said, however, guilt peculiarly accused's any event irresistible, does magnify asserting What infer, help court, thing. infer when solemnizes accused quite another." 614, 1232-33 (citations omitted). 17 said "forbids instructions such guilt." 615, 1233. think Appeals' holding case rests too broad reading restrictive Taking up second these points first, reasoning necessarily assumption references "explain" were directed period offenses being investigated, itself. understandably mirrors position brief here. While agree manner, appellate substitute ambiguous language colloquy quoted earlier shows immediately hearing comment, understood now contends interpretation incorrect, offer, while considered judge, explanation supports. If were, argues, so clearly limited pretrial period, unusual, least, stood silently clear contrary interpretation. accept regard reasonable adopted court. 19 apparently view "direct" violates construed Griffin. decline give reading, inconsistent Amendment, protects addressed prosecutorial baldly stated must known disputed refused them. considerable difference purposes between sort 20 Baxter Palmigiano, 425 308, 319, 96 1551, 1558, 47 810 (1976), "Griffin prohibits suggesting See also Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 338, 98 1091, 1094, 55 319 (1978). present evident instead referred possibility testifying opportunities afforded, where 21 "Under ask silence. believe protective shield converted sword area legitimate weaknesses case." Hasting, 461 499, 515, 103 1974, 1984, 76 (STEVENS, concurring) (citation 22 principle examined context illustrated our treatment Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 2954, 57 973 quickly dismissed silent repeatedly uncontradicted. need decide generally improper, "Lockett's focused attention outlining contemplated opening and, second, near close 'next witness.' 595, 2959-60. concluded: "When viewed background, seems added nothing impression already created Lockett's promised lawyer told stand." Ibid.; cf. (1985); Darden Wainwright, 477 187, 2464, 91 144 (1986).5 "[The] central purpose criminal factual question innocence, Nobles, 422 225, 95 2160, 45 (1975). Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 681, 1431, 1436, 89 674 To end important meet fairly arguments another. dicta effect silence," 1233, thing hold, Griffin, exercise guilt; another urge, here, same prohibit responding adverting some "cost" having remained each situation, expand preclude situations one. 24 Reversed. KENNEDY 26 part. 27 MARSHALL concludes (1965). share conclusion considerations account determining occurred weighed, instead, assessing qualified error, requiring reversal despite absence contemporaneous objection. 42. write separately, determination well wrong. fear flaws court's analysis, read it, attributable confusion generated Court's recent (1985), direction reconsider Young. 28 "Plain errors defects affecting substantial rights noticed brought court." Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52(b). "[C]onsiderations fairness parties public interest bringing litigation end" led except contemporaneous-objection requirement are "obvious" "otherwise seriously affect fairness, integrity reputation judicial proceedings." Atkinson, 297 157, 159-160, 56 391, 392, 80 555 (1936). Frady, 456 152, 163, n. 14, 102 1584, 1592, 71 816 (1982) (plain "to used sparingly, solely those miscarriage justice otherwise result"). doctrine invoked rarely, avoided articulating strict formula other follow applying doctrine. Cf. Engle Isaac, 107, 135, 1576, 783 (plain-error analysis characterized "vague inquiry"). 29 presented lower determined reached without considering prejudiced pinpointing thought gone wrong, broke inquiry parts: "seriously affected 'substantial rights,' "had unfair prejudicial impact deliberations." 17, 1047, 14. application includes form prejudice inquiry, attempt isolate giving definition produced more mischief than clarity. id., 36, 1057 dissenting). below, believe, example mischief. 30 analyzing tracked Young two-pronged analysis: found, right, proved, beyond doubt, harmless. 1132, 1137 dividing parts, appears nature twice—both issue following lenient determine preserved Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 828, 705 (1967) (where commits reviewing "must able declare [the error] harmless doubt"). Accounting magnitude is, course, appropriate. Weems 217 349, 362, 544, 547, 54 793 (1910) (court less reluctant find "when asserted high character expression sanction Constitution bill rights"). am troubled, apparent double counting threatens render meaningless Under always subject sensitive set Chapman. 31 reflected "in Young," continue path started formulate test articulates applied,* or, alternative, make clear, reasserting doctrine's lack rigid definition, test. latter true single rare severely undermine "the 160, 392. Either clarify their role errors, unnoticed warrant reversal. proper course" "[w]hen detect legal harmless-error rules forth appropriate standards then remand further proceedings," 30-31, 1053-54 (opinion part), vacate clarifying how applied. 32 whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 33 practical terms, erosion rule today sanctions modest: tailored address "a counsel," ante, 32. Presumably, refrain claiming order insulate themselves Only claims capable provoking "fairly respon[d] silence." Ante, however slight today's decision, faithlessness bright-line Wil- son (1893), unsettling unwarranted. therefore dissent. 34 styles rejects unduly direct lays exactly prohibition, uncertain terms. final words read: "We forbids 5, 1232, ("Our [is] silence"). recognized categorical subsequent decisions.1 Respondent's thus represents straightforward orthodox controlling law. 35 Moreover, involves federal prosecution, satisfy statutory requirements 3481, supra. longstanding prohibition anything, plainly Griffin: "To prevent [any presumption testify,] especially hostile excluded jury. minds jurors can unaffected circumstance excluding all it." 65, 766 (emphasis added). you" undeniably 36 underpinnings difficult discern. freely offers "[w]e case," 869, far forthcoming reasoning. flirt distinction invites No text animating passages cites California's practice permitting instruct "[w]hat suggests similar prosecution. Indeed, explicitly distinction: "[T]he 1233 crux First, premise problematic. "fairly" provoked prevented taking maintains, argued explaining investigation, record most, only, one.2 More fundamentally, suggestion depends muddled. nevertheless precisely kind holdings designed eliminate. If, example, argues failed protect person, responds sin, defense, testify.3 Such 38 breadth simple convenience administrability. Rather, theory erode. As "comment costly." 1232-33. commonsensical tends inherently penalize stand. doubt possible conceive particular impose eyes but, argue undertaking goes harmfulness, rather existence, importantly, truly benign frequent offhand subtle innuendo imposes unmistakable, obvious, cost responded pervasive threat general prophylactic rule. author explained: "In guarantee place price invocation privilege—a value privilege." Burt Jersey, 414 938, 243, 165 (1973) (Douglas, denial certiorari). similarly case-by-case favor ban: created, 766. 344, 1097, (1978) dissenting) (Although probability "can never eliminated, stands proposition government add unnecessarily risk mute") (footnote 39 That occasions ensuing conviction. much 21-24, 826-28, (Griffin believes contribute verdict). My fundamental objection confuses analytically distinct harmless, like made, plain. guide identify reversible, enter occurred. 40 Nor dispute "prosecutorial context." 33. precedents evaluated perception offered inaccurate barred client framework evaluation previously indicated applied unethical interjected impressions meriting reversal: "Viewed context, statements, inappropriate amounting justice." 16, 1047. teaching "rights scales" sometimes rise level 1046. first intervening 1095 (1983), remanded, obvious argument. Thus, "context" relevant fact muddies straying distinction. 41 ultimately attempts justify appeal truth-finding function writes "it rationale things, neither legitimately support holding. statements aided fraud. This, way admitting invited "truth-finding" mind, quick answer concern scheme presupposes discover charged; impediment finds irksome precious design. Mackey 401 667, 1160, 1164, 404 (1971) (Fifth "privilege 'is adjunct ascertainment truth,' aimed serving complex values historically rested") Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 416, 86 459, 465, 453 (1966)). ban social cost, acceptance prized achievement separates system 'inquisitorial justice.' 1232. 42 meaning trial's meant bear merely aware Perhaps vindication honor principles play evaluating my estimation, rarely significant enough subordinate unfettered vindicated burdensome alternatives, sustaining perhaps separate disciplinary proceeding dissembling attorney. event, justification "perfectly proper." 33, 5. conclusion, fact, unjustifiable; perfectly Wilson. reversibly that, indicated, question. 43 concluding reveal simply permit offer "fair one." gut feeling decision. circumspect bending service takes fairer result individual Whether adulteration produces here (and good reason not), "The 'as seeks guard,' fulfilled 'to unless chooses speak will, suffer silence.' Estelle Smith, 451 454, 467-468, 101 1866, 1875-76, 68 359 (1981) omitted; footnote itself recognizes, see 34, They ran afoul express prohibitions response, validating reject violative acquitted false bank obtaining loan, 1014, possessing destructive device, 5861. "By way, don't know many heard Mr. Robinson, Did ever chance sorts fraud? "Did man many, time say, 'Well, bedroom sets.' 18. furniture clothing, clothing lawn, 'What clothing?' 19. "Now, get indicted fair, explain, members community, agents?" Ibid. Government, done. items Kentucky inventory proved Why disprove them, explain?" 21. persons commission offense shall, request, competent witness. His shall create him." 3481. Concomitant protections afforded For years, concerning grounded (1893). Since time, scope expanded encompass terrain occupied these, provisions parallel fashion. 613-614, (quoting passage concluding: "If 'Fifth Amendment' substituted 'act' 'statute,' spirit Self-Incrimination Clause reflected"); 504-508, 1978-80, (1983). inflamed vouched credibility witnesses, necessitate contrast, witness may, proper. * formulating standard, might look Courts nonconstitutional see, e.g., Davis, 657 637, 640 (CA4 1981) Kotteakos 328 750, 66 1239, 1248, 90 1557 (1946), "[t]he harmlessness probable verdict trial"), alluded STEVENS' dissent 35, 37, 1056, 1057, (1985) "obviously prejudicial," sufficient degree reversal). See, 507, 1979, "interpreted unconstitutional burden basic right"); Jenkins Anderson, 447 231, 235, 100 2124, 2127, 65 (1980) "prevents asserts right" testify); 1163, ("Griffin forbid defendants' thereby removing implementing purpose"); Jackson, 390 570, 583, 25, 88 1209, 1217, 138 (1968) (In impermissible trial"); Stovall Denno, 388 293, 300, 1967, 1971, 1199 (referring "). Most controversial refer outright allow actions preindictment investigation. balance, admittedly ambiguous, best light. troublesome, because, majority out, understanding tension cogent "accept[s] 31. even though expressly reasonable. hypothetical chain events bears passing resemblance paraded jury: to." 1096 varies subtly, bald condemned 1231, "[t]hese things explain"—and 62, "if crime, go Heaven innocence." focus responsive blatant defense.

Category: 0