Opinion ID: 170024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to Present the Reason for Tally’s Silence

Text: Tally claims he was deprived of due process and his rights under the Confrontation Clause when the trial court did not allow him to solicit from Dr. Johnson or Dr. Atwell the reason he remained silent during the initial interview. Tally cites, inter alia, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). The Colorado Court of Appeals and the federal district court agreed the trial court did not err because the reason for Tally’s silence was irrelevant. We agree as well. While trial judges “retain wide latitude” in determining the scope of cross-examination, “a criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors . . . could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 680 (quotations and citation omitted). In Van Arsdall, the trial court precluded any inquiry into the possible bias of a primary witness. The Court concluded that “cutting off all questioning about an event . . . that a -12- jury might reasonably have found furnished the witness a motive for favoring the prosecution in his testimony, the court’s ruling violated respondent’s rights secured by the Confrontation Clause.” Id. at 679. Similarly, in Chambers, the defense was not allowed to present reliable evidence that a witness for the state had orally and through a written confession (later rescinded), admitted guilt for Chambers’ charged offense. The trial court refused to allow Chambers to crossexamine the witness on credibility. The Court held that preventing Chambers from presenting critical evidence “denied him a trial in accord with traditional and fundamental standards of due process.” Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302. Tally’s attempt to equate evidence of counsel’s advice to remain silent with the crucial credibility evidence in Van Arsdall and Chambers is a stretch and ultimately unavailing. Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Atwell testified that Tally’s silence during Dr. Johnson’s first interview in any way affected their opinion as to whether Tally was sane at the time of the offense. Moreover, Tally does not suggest such cross-examination was needed to show bias or test the credibility of either witness. Thus, the Colorado Court of Appeals’ determination was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.