Opinion ID: 170999
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Reference to Pretrial Silence

Text: Mr. DeLozier claims that Perrine was ineffective for failing to object to questions on cross-examination that violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The exchange at issue was as follows: Q. How long did it take you to arrive at this story you just told this jury? Let's see it's May 20 something and this happened in September. That's five-that's eight months; right? A. I've been in jail, yes, eight months. Q. No. I asked how long did it take you to come up with the story you just told this jury? A. The whole time I was in the woods. Q. I figured that. R. Vol. 10 at 929. We have held that the test for determining if there has been an impermissible comment on a defendant's right to remain silent at the time of his arrest is whether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent. United States v. Mora, 845 F.2d 233, 235 (10th Cir.1988) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). But [m]anifest intent will not be found if some other explanation for the prosecutor's remark is equally plausible. Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, if a defendant testifies at trial, the prosecutor may use the defendant's earlier silence to rebut the defendant's trial testimony[, although] the government may not attempt to use it as substantive evidence of guilt. Earnest v. Dorsey, 87 F.3d 1123, 1135 (10th Cir.1996). Here, the OCCA construed the cross-examination as more in line with questioning regarding `how long did it take for you to come up with such a ridiculous story?' DeLozier, 991 P.2d at 28. It ruled that because the question was not a reference to DeLozier's pre-trial silence, id., it [could not] say that the failure to object to th[is] comment[ ] was ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 32. This characterization of the disputed questioning is a reasonable one. Therefore, the OCCA's determination that Perrine was not ineffective was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application, of clearly established federal law. Mr. DeLozier has not pointed to any Supreme Court precedent that would have required a contrary ruling by the OCCA.