Opinion ID: 1267773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comments on the Defendants' Post-Arrest Silence

Text: The appellants also assert that the trial court erred in permitting the Solicitor to comment on the defendants' post-arrest silence in violation of Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed. (2d) 91 (1976). The Solicitor repeatedly drew attention to the fact that Lucille exercised her constitutional right to remain silent following her arrest for the murder of Winston. No objections were made, and therefore these errors were not preserved for our review. Further, the trial judge gave a curative instruction. However, we strongly caution solicitors against violating the Doyle prohibition, and we urge that such comments be avoided in the future. In conclusion, we hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to qualify Ms. Koelpin as an expert in the field of interpretation of blood spatters, and therefore, we reverse the appellants' convictions and remand their case for a new trial. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.