Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/171/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:23:53+00:00

Document:
Following respondent's arrest for robbery, he was taken to the police station, where, advised of his right to remain silent, he made no response to an officer's inquiry as to the source of money found on his person. Respondent testified at his trial and, in an effort to impeach his alibi, the prosecutor caused respondent to admit on cross-examination that he had not offered the exculpatory information to the police at the time of his arrest. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the colloquy, but refused to declare a mistrial. Respondent was convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that inquiry into respondent's prior silence impermissibly prejudiced his defense as well as infringed upon his constitutional right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. The Government, relying on Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494, contends that, since respondent chose to testify in his own behalf, it was permissible to impeach his credibility by proving that he had chosen to remain silent at the time of his arrest.
Held: Respondent's silence during police interrogation lacked significant probative value, and, under these circumstances, any reference to his silence carried with it an intolerably prejudicial impact. This Court, exercising its supervisory authority over the lower federal courts, therefore concludes that respondent is entitled to a new trial. Pp. 422 U. S. 176-181.
(a) Under the circumstances of this case, the failure of respondent, who had just been given the Miranda warnings, to respond during custodial interrogation to inquiry about the money can as easily connote reliance on the right to remain silent as to support an inference that his trial testimony was a later fabrication. Raffel v. United States, supra, distinguished. Pp. 422 U. S. 176-177.
present; and (3) as the target of eyewitness identification, he was clearly a "potential defendant." Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, followed. Pp. 422 U. S. 177-180.
(c) Admission of evidence of silence at the time of arrest has a significant potential for prejudice in that the jury may assign much more weight to the defendant's previous silence than is warranted. P. 422 U. S. 180.
162 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 498 F.2d 1038, affirmed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 422 U. S. 181, DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 422 U. S. 182, and WHITE, J., post, p. 422 U. S. 182, filed opinions concurring in the judgment. BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result.
to declare a mistrial. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that inquiry into respondent's prior silence impermissibly prejudiced his defense and infringed upon his right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 384 U. S. 468 n. 37 (1966). We granted certiorari, 419 U.S. 1045, because of a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether a defendant can be cross-examined about his silence during police interrogation, [Footnote 2] and because of the importance of this question to the administration of justice.
We find that the probative value of respondent's pretrial silence in this case was outweighed by the prejudicial impact of admitting it into evidence. Affirming the judgment on this ground, we have no occasion to reach the broader constitutional question that supplied an alternative basis for the decision below.
On June 1, 1971, Lonnie Arrington reported to police that he had been attacked and robbed by a group of five men. Initially, he claimed that $65 had been stolen, but he later changed the amount to $96 after consulting with his wife. As the police were preparing to accompany Arrington through the neighborhood in search of the attackers, he observed two men and identified one of them as one of his assailants. When the police gave chase, the two men fled, but one was immediately captured.
The victim identified respondent Hale as one of the robbers.
Respondent was then arrested, taken to the police station, and advised of his right to remain silent. He was searched and found to be in possession of $158 in cash. An officer then asked: "Where did you get the money?", Hale made no response.
At trial, respondent took the witness stand in his own defense. He acknowledged having met Arrington in a shoe store on the day in question. Hale stated that, after the meeting, he was approached by three men who inquired whether Arrington had any money, to which Hale replied he "didn't know." From there, respondent claimed he went to a narcotics treatment center, where he remained until after the time of the robbery. According to his testimony, he left the center with a friend who subsequently purchased narcotics. Shortly after the transaction, they were approached by the police. Hale testified that he fled because he feared being found in the presence of a person carrying narcotics. He also insisted that his estranged wife had received her welfare check on that day, and had given him approximately $150 to purchase some money orders for her as he had done on several prior occasions.
"Q. Did you in any way indicate [to the police] where that money came from?"
"A. I didn't feel that it was necessary at the time. "
The Government takes the position that, since the respondent chose to testify in his own behalf, it was permissible to impeach his credibility by proving that he had chosen to remain silent at the time of his arrest. [Footnote 3] For this proposition, the Government relies heavily on this Court's decision in Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494 (1926). [Footnote 4] There, a second trial was required when the first jury failed to reach a verdict. In reliance on his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the accused declined to testify at his first trial. At the second trial, however, he took the stand in an effort to refute the testimony of a Government witness. Over objection, Raffel admitted that he had remained silent in the face of the same testimony at the earlier proceeding. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that Raffel's silence at the first trial was inconsistent with his testimony at the second, and that his silence could be used to impeach the credibility of his later representations. The Government argues that silence during police interrogation is similarly probative, and should therefore be admissible for impeachment purposes.
we conclude that the principles of that decision compel affirmance here.
A basic rule of evidence provides that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness. As a preliminary matter, however, the court must be persuaded that the statements are indeed inconsistent. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1040 (J. Chadbourn rev.1970) (hereafter Wigmore). If the Government fails to establish a threshold inconsistency between silence at the police station and later exculpatory testimony at trial, proof of silence lacks any significant probative value, and must therefore be excluded.
In most circumstances, silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force. For example, silence is commonly thought to lack probative value on the question of whether a person has expressed tacit agreement or disagreement with contemporaneous statements of others. See 4 Wigmore § 1071. Silence gains more probative weight where it persists in the face of accusation, since it is assumed in such circumstances that the accused would be more likely than not to dispute an untrue accusation. Failure to contest an assertion, however, is considered evidence of acquiescence only if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question. 3A Wigmore § 1042. The Raffel Court found that the circumstances of the earlier confrontation naturally called for a reply. Accordingly, the Court held that evidence of the prior silence of the accused was admissible. But the situation of an arrestee is very different, for he is under no duty to speak, and, as in this case, has ordinarily been advised by government authorities only moments earlier that he has a right to remain silent, and that anything he does say can and will be used against him in court.
Respondent, for example, had just been given the Miranda warnings, and was particularly aware of his right to remain silent and the fact that anything he said could be used against him. Under these circumstances, his failure to offer an explanation during the custodial interrogation can as easily be taken to indicate reliance on the right to remain silent as to support an inference that the explanatory testimony was a later fabrication. There is simply nothing to indicate which interpretation is more probably correct.
Revenue Service declined to answer a series of questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate him. The witness, Max Halperin, was later indicated for conspiracy to defraud the United States. At trial, he took the stand to testify in his own defense, and there responded to the same questions in a manner consistent with innocence. On cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited, for purposes of impeachment, testimony concerning the defendant's earlier invocation of the Fifth Amendment on the same subject matter. The Court framed the issue of Halperin's prior silence as an evidentiary problem, and concluded that the circumstances surrounding Halperin's appearance before the grand jury justified his reliance on the Fifth Amendment, imposed no mandate to speak, and presented valid reasons other than culpability for deferring comment. The Court ruled that Halperin's prior silence was not so clearly inconsistent with his later testimony as to justify admission of evidence of such silence as evidence of a prior inconsistent "statement."
for the very purpose of providing evidence against himself." 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 423.
Applying these factors here, it appears that this case is an even stronger one for exclusion of the evidence than Grunewald. First, the record reveals respondent's repeated assertions of innocence during the proceedings; there is nothing in the record of respondent's testimony inconsistent with his claim of innocence. Second, the forum in which the questioning of Hale took place was secretive. and. in addition. lacked such minimal safeguards as the presence of public arbiters and a reporter, which were present in Grunewald. Even more than Halperin, respondent may well have been intimidated by the setting, or, at the very least, he may have preferred to make any statements in more hospitable surroundings, in the presence of an attorney, or in open court. Third, Hale's status as a "potential defendant" was even clearer than Halperin's, since Hale had been the subject of eyewitness identification, and had been arrested on suspicion of having committed the offense.
he could not have expected the police to release him merely on the strength of his explanation. Hale's prior contacts with the police and his participation in a narcotics rehabilitation program further diminished the likelihood of his release, irrespective of what he might say. In light of the many alternative explanations for his pretrial silence, we do not think it sufficiently probative of an inconsistency with his in court testimony to warrant admission of evidence thereof.
As we have stated before: "When the risk of confusion is so great as to upset the balance of advantage, the evidence goes out." Shepard v. United States, 290 U. S. 96, 290 U. S. 104 (1933). We now conclude that the respondent's silence during police interrogation lacked significant probative value, and that any reference to his silence under such circumstances carried with it an intolerably prejudicial impact.
Accordingly, we hold that, under the circumstances of this case, it was prejudicial error for the trial court to permit cross-examination of respondent concerning his silence during police interrogation, and we conclude, in the exercise of our supervisory authority over the lower federal courts, that Hale is entitled to a new trial.
Respondent was tried in Federal District Court prior to the effective date for the transfer of jurisdiction over D.C. Code offenses under the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473.
Compare United States v. Semensohn, 421 F.2d 1206, 1209, (CA2 1970); United States v. Brinson, 411 F.2d 1057, 1060 (CA6 1969); Fowle v. United States, 410 F.2d 48 (CA9 1969); and Johnson v. Patterson, 475 F.2d 1066 (CA10), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878 (1973), with United States ex rel. Burt v. New Jersey, 475 F.2d 234 (CA3), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 938 (1973); and United States v. Ramirez, 441 F.2d 950, 954 (CA5), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869 (1971).
Immediately following the exchange, the court cautioned the jury that the questioning was improper, and that they were to disregard it. The Court of Appeals held that the error was not cured by this instruction, and the Government does not contend in this Court that the error was harmless.
Since we do not reach the constitutional claim raised today, we need not decide whether the Raffel decision has survived Johnson v. United States, 318 U. S. 189 (1943), and Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965). See Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 353 U. S. 425-426 (1957) (Black, J., concurring).
See Kamisar, Kauper's "Judicial Examination of the Accused" Forty Years Later -- Some Comments on a Remarkable Article, 73 Mich.L.Rev. 15, 34 n. 70 (1974).
"Innocent men are more likely to [remain silent] in secret proceedings, where they testify without advice of counsel and without opportunity for cross-examination, than in open court proceedings, where cross-examination and judicially supervised procedure provide safeguards for the establishing of the whole, as against the possibility of merely partial, truth."
Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 422 423.
We recognize that the question whether evidence is sufficiently inconsistent to be sent to the jury on the issue of credibility is ordinarily in the discretion of the trial court. "But where such evidentiary matter has grave constitutional overtones . . . , we feel justified in exercising this Court's supervisory control." Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 23-424.
"open court," there is a constitutional option to remain totally silent, but if an accused takes the stand, all admissible questions must be answered. A nonparty witness has less option than the accused, and must take the stand if called. We ought to be wary of casual generalizations that read well, but "do not wash."
"I do not, like the Court, rest my conclusion on the special circumstances of this case. I can think of no special circumstances that would justify use of a constitutional privilege to discredit or convict a person who asserts it."
Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 353 U. S. 425 (1957) (concurring opinion). My view of this case is therefore controlled by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). I do not accept the idea that Miranda loses its force in the context of impeaching the testimony of a witness. See Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). In my opinion, Miranda should be given full effect.
I also believe, as does my Brother WHITE, that, given the existence of Miranda, due process is violated when the prosecution calls attention to the silence of the accused at the time of arrest.
silence at the time of arrest and to insist that, because he did not speak about the facts of the case at that time, as he was told he need not do, an unfavorable inference might be drawn as to the truth of his trial testimony. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 318 U. S. 189, 318 U. S. 196-199 (1943). Surely Hale was not informed here that his silence, as well as his words, could be used against him at trial. Indeed, anyone would reasonably conclude from Miranda warnings that this would not be the case. I would affirm on this ground.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1040
 § 1071
 § 1042
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.