Opinion ID: 836626
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of DOYLE v. OHIO and its Progeny

Text: It is clear that the prosecution's use of defendant's silence violated defendant's due process rights under the federal constitution. The prosecutor's examination of the arresting officer established that the silence to which the prosecutor referred occurred post-arrest and post- Miranda. A reference to a defendant's post-arrest, post- Miranda silence generally constitutes a Doyle violation unless the reference was so minimal that silence was not submitted to the jury as evidence from which it was allowed to draw any permissible inference.... Greer, 483 U.S. at 764-765, 107 S.Ct. 3102. In this case, the prosecution clearly crossed this line by repeatedly using defendant's post-arrest, post- Miranda silence as evidence of defendant's guilt in its case-in-chief and to impeach the defendant's testimony that he was innocent. The prosecutor impliedly asked the jury to infer guilt from defendant's silence through references to defendant's silence in his opening statement and his examination of the arresting officer. In his closing argument, the prosecutor expressly asked the jury to infer guilt from defendant's silence by explaining that the reason defendant had been silent was because the defendant had been making his daughter do things that no person speaks about. Further, in his cross-examination of defendant, the prosecutor attempted to use defendant's silence to impeach defendant's credibility. In sum, the state gave defendant his Miranda warnings, which constituted an implicit promise that his choice to remain silent would not be used against him. The state then breached that promise by attempting to use defendant's silence as evidence. Depending on the circumstances of the case, even a single reference to a defendant's post-arrest, post- Miranda silence, either as evidence of substantive guilt or impeachment, may violate a defendant's due process rights. Where, as in this case, the prosecution makes repeated references to a defendant's silence, both as substantive evidence of guilt and for purposes of impeachment, the violation is clear. Therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeals holding that the prosecutor's repeated references to defendant's post-arrest, post- Miranda silence violated the due process rights guaranteed to defendant by the United States Constitution.