Opinion ID: 734867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reference to Duran's Post-Arrest Silence

Text: 18 Duran engaged an attorney prior to turning himself in to the police the morning after the killing. Upon advice of his attorney, Duran declined to answer questions by the investigating officers upon arrest. At trial, the prosecutor elicited an admission from Duran that he had not made a statement to the police when he turned himself in. This reference by the prosecutor to Duran's post-arrest silence constitutes error. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618-19 (1976). 19 However, the State argues that Duran's direct testimony implies that Duran cooperated fully with the police investigation by giving an exonerating statement and that this implication opened the door to cross-examination to rebut the implication. We reject this argument. 20 On direct examination, Duran's only relevant statements were: (1) I surrendered to the police in [my counsel's] presence on the 19th [of January]; and (2) I knew the police wanted to interview me the next morning at 9:00 and that [my counsel] wanted to be there for me, with me.... I was told that the police had agreed to let me have a quiet night and that we could do everything in the morning. Duran never stated, or implied, that he gave a statement to the police. The prosecutor's reference to his refusal to give a statement was therefore improper rebuttal and constituted prosecutorial misconduct.