Opinion ID: 566029
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comment upon Mr. Whalen's Silence

Text: 13 The day after the assault on Otts, FBI agents advised Mr. Whalen of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Mr. Whalen elected to exercise his right to remain silent. Approximately four months later, however, Mr. Whalen told Correctional Officers Street and Thalacker that I cut that f-----'s throat. If I would have done it right I would have killed him. R. 123. Mr. Whalen took the initiative in making these statements. The correctional officers did not question him. At trial, the government asked Mr. Whalen why he had not mentioned cutting Otts' throat in self-defense. After an objection was raised to this line of questioning, the court permitted the government to question Mr. Whalen about those statements that he made to the two correctional officers but prohibited the government from asking any questions about post-arrest silence. Mem. op. at 3. At closing argument, the government made the following remarks: 14 There are the other statements that he made after the assault to Bob Thalacker and John Street. What were those statements? I'd do it again if I got the chance. Is that consistent with a claim of self-defense, I'd do it again if I got another chance? I'd cut that f-----'s throat, that's what he said. 15 A person who has to defend himself under perilous circumstances goes out and tells people about it. He says, I cut the guy's throat, but he was coming after me. I did what I had to do under the circumstances to save myself. Is there one witness you heard testify that that's what Otts [sic] said? None of the witnesses--or that's what the Defendant said. None of those witnesses to whom the Defendant made post-assault statements stated that the Defendant said anything of that sort. 16 Tr. of Plaintiff's Closing Argument at 30-31. 17 Mr. Whalen argues that the government improperly commented upon his post-arrest silence in violation of Miranda v. Arizona and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). In Doyle, the Supreme Court held that the impeachment use of a defendant's silence following his arrest and receipt of Miranda warnings violated his rights under the due process clause. The Court reasoned that post-arrest silence is insolubly ambiguous in light of Miranda's admonition that a criminal suspect is not required to make any statement. 426 U.S. at 617, 96 S.Ct. at 2244. Silence may be nothing more than the arrestee's exercise of his constitutional rights. Id. 18 Here, however, Mr. Whalen did not remain silent. For whatever reason, Mr. Whalen decided to speak to Correctional Officers Street and Thalacker about the incident with Otts. The Supreme Court has noted that a defendant who voluntarily speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not been induced to remain silent. As to the subject matter of his statements, the defendant has not remained silent at all. Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 408, 100 S.Ct. 2180, 2182, 65 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980); see also Phelps v. Duckworth, 772 F.2d 1410-13 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1011, 106 S.Ct. 541, 88 L.Ed.2d 471 (1985). Given the facts of this case, Mr. Whalen's statements were inconsistent with his claim at trial that he cut Otts' throat in self-defense. The government merely used Mr. Whalen's statements (and logical conclusions that could be drawn from these statements) to highlight weaknesses in Mr. Whalen's self-defense theory; the government attempted to draw no inference from Mr. Whalen's invocation of his right to silence. Thus, the government's questioning and closing remarks did not violate the strictures of Doyle. See Anderson, 447 U.S. at 408, 100 S.Ct. at 2182; Grancorvitz v. Franklin, 890 F.2d 34 (7th Cir.1989) (no Doyle violation when government comments upon post-arrest failure to complain of injuries allegedly suffered), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2566, 109 L.Ed.2d 749 (1990).