Opinion ID: 767408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indirect references to Aldaco's failure to testify

Text: 33 Direct comment on a defendant's failure to testify is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 613-14 (1965). Additionally, indirect commentary on a defendant's failure to take the stand can also constitute a violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. See United States v. Cotnam, 88 F.3d 487, 497 (7th Cir. 1996). Further, a prosecutor's comment that the government's evidence on an issue is 'uncontradicted,' 'undenied,' 'unrebutted,' 'undisputed,' etc., will be a violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights if: 1) the only person who could have contradicted, denied, rebutted, or disputed the evidence was the defendant; 2) the prosecutor manifestly intended to refer to a defendant's silence; or 3) a jury would naturally and necessarily take the remark for a comment on the defendant's silence. Id. (citations omitted). 34 Aldaco argues that the prosecutor made statements during his closing argument that violated his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Aldaco specifically objects to statements by the prosecutor like they have not disputed this. . . , and [w]ell, if there was anyone who could corroborate their version of the events, . . . claiming that they are impermissible under Cotnam because Aldaco was the only one who could controvert or dispute Officer Sanchez' testimony and the other evidence presented against him. 35 In this case, the prosecution merely commented in closing arguments that Officer Sanchez had consistently stated thatAldaco was the man on the roof with the gun and that they have not disputed this; this referring to the fact that Officer Sanchez had consistently identified Aldaco as the man on the roof holding the gun. The prosecution evidently felt the need to point out this consistency in Officer Sanchez' testimony because Aldaco's counsel focused on other areas in which Officer Sanchez' testimony was not entirely consistent. Indirect references to the undisputed evidence or the lack of corroboration by the defendant violate the Fifth Amendment only when the defendant is the sole source who could possibly rebut the statement. See id. Where, as in this case, the defendant's three accomplices were available to rebut the officer's allegation that Aldaco possessed the gun, the prosecutor's statement that the evidence was undisputed was not improper.