Opinion ID: 853198
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attacks on Wentz's Credibility

Text: On redirect examination, the following exchange took place between Wentz and his counsel: Q. Now, at the time you made the statement at the police station, after the wreck and after these incidents happened, did you have a lawyer? A. No, I didn't have one. Q. Were you sworn under oath when you were giving that statement to police? A. No, I wasn't. Q. Did you answer all their questions? A. I believe so, until such time as ... Q. Well, did you answer all their questions? A. Yes. This prompted the following questions from the State on re-cross examination: Q. Mr. Wentz, Mr. Davis just asked you if you answered all the police's questions and you said you did; isn't that right? A. Right. Q. But, in fact, you didn't; did you? A. Uh, I did until the point when my dad advised me that we should go ahead and get a lawyer. Q. Okay. So, the police were questioning you about this crime and, after they began questioning you, you said on the advice of your father, I don't want to answer anymore questions? A. At that time. Wentz contends that the State's questions concerning his silence following the administration of Miranda warnings violated Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), and that his counsel's failure to object to that line of questioning constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In Doyle, the United States Supreme Court held that using a defendant's post-arrest silence to impeach an exculpatory story told for the first time at trial violated the defendant's due process rights. However, as this Court explained in Vitek v. State, 750 N.E.2d 346, 350 (Ind.2001), [a]lthough evidence of a defendant's post-Miranda silence is generally not admissible, the defendant may open the door to its admission. One example of that opening is when a defendant testifies on direct examination that he cooperated fully with police. Id. at 351; accord United States v. Fairchild, 505 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir.1975). That is exactly what Wentz attempted to do on redirect examination here, when he testified that he answered all of the police's questions. Therefore, there was no Doyle violation. Because there was no Doyle violation, there was nothing to which Wentz's counsel could object, and therefore no ineffective assistance.