Opinion ID: 664663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Madden's Failure to Testify

Text: 26 Madden also challenges the propriety of the prosecutor's statements regarding his failure to testify. The statement at issue, made during the guilt-innocence phase, is as follows: 27 Then, also, the defense will argue that why in the world would someone who killed, murdered two people and stole this credit card sign their own name to the Texaco card? I don't know that; you don't know why. There's only one person here that knows why, and there's only one person here that knows the answer to all of these questions. 28 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that this passage represented an impermissible reference to Madden's failure to testify, but concluded that the reference was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 17 The district court, relying on Milton v. Procunier, 18 held that the statement, taken in context, was not a comment on defendant's failure to testify. Alternatively, the district court concluded that, if there was error, it was harmless. 29 When reviewing a claim that the prosecutor impermissibly commented on the defendant's failure to testify, we ask whether or not the [prosecutor's] statement was manifestly intended or was of such character that a jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify. 19 We cannot agree with the district court that the prosecutor's statement was not a comment on Madden's failure to testify. A review of Milton convinces us that it is not dispositive, as the prosecutor there was clearly referring to the existence of an eyewitness. In contrast, the prosecutor's statement in the instant case could apply only to Madden, and it undeniably directs the jury's attention to Madden's silence. Consequently, we agree with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that the statement was an impermissible comment on Madden's failure to testify. 30 We also agree with the state and district courts that such error is harmless under Chapman v. California, 20 as it would be under Brecht v. Abrahamson 21 and Kotteakos v. United States. 22 The statement was made in connection with Madden's signature of his own name on Megason's Texaco card--a mistake which led to his capture. Admittedly, the card also suggested Madden's guilt as it tended to place him at the scene of the crime and implicate him in the robbery of the victim. There was, however, other evidence of a similar nature (Madden's possession of Megason's tool box and watch; his admission that he stole Megason's truck) and evidence of a far more damaging nature (possession of all three murder weapons). 31 In addition, the prosecutor's statement was made in anticipation of the defense's argument that a guilty man would not sign his own name, thereby leading police to him. The defense did indeed make this argument, asking rhetorically in closing why the defendant would use his own name. Accordingly, we hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and does not require reversal.