Opinion ID: 771550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Threat to Use Defendant's Silence Against Him

Text: 34 In a deposition prior to trial, Knoll testified that, during the interrogation of Simmons, detectives just told [Simmons] that if he chose to lie, which [Knoll] believed he was, not to tell the truth, that if it went to court then [Knoll] would get on the stand and . . . would testify that [Simmons] sat there during the whole interrogation, and denied his involvement in the case. Simmons argues that Knoll's statement constituted a threat to use his silence against him. The Missouri Supreme Court interpreted Knoll's statement not as a threat to use Simmons' silence against him, but instead as a threat to use his denial of involvement against him. We agree. 35 Prior to a custodial interrogation, law enforcement officers must warn the person that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). In the present case, Simmons was read his rights under Miranda. Knoll did not improperly threaten Simmons by telling him that if Simmons chose to lie, Knoll would testify as to what he said. Knoll merely restated the consequences of which Miranda warns: that Simmons' statements of denial would be used against him. We reject the contention that use of statements of denial against a defendant would amount to use of a defendant's silence against him.