Opinion ID: 30173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecution's Comments on Defendant's Silence

Text: 45 Finally, the defense argues that a new trial is warranted because the prosecution made improper comments to the jury regarding Defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. A defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is well established. A prosecutor is prohibited from commenting directly or indirectly on a defendant's failure to testify or produce evidence. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); see also United States v. Montoya-Ortiz, 7 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that the Constitution prohibits direct and indirect references to a defendant's silence.). The test for determining if a constitutional violation has occurred is whether `the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.' United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 232 (5th Cir.1990) (quoting Davis v. United States, 357 F.2d 438, 441 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 927, 87 S.Ct. 284, 17 L.Ed.2d 210 (1966)), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 934, 111 S.Ct. 2057, 114 L.Ed.2d 462 (1991). [T]he comments complained of must be viewed within the context of the trial in which they are made. United States v. Dula, 989 F.2d 772, 776 (5th Cir.1993). 46 In closing, the prosecution stated [t]hroughout the whole trial you have still not heard why. Ladies and gentleman, there is no innocent why. There is no innocent why for this form and those numbers and the bill breakdown. Defendant argues that the prosecution's statement was an improper reference to Defendant's silence. Almost immediately after the statement, the district judge instructed the jury on Defendant's right to remain silent. Mr. Owen, let me instruct the jury. The law never requires a defendant to prove anything or to produce any evidence, and no inference may be drawn from the election of a defendant not to testify. Defendant argues that the district court recognized that the prosecution's statements were capable of being improperly weighed by the jury at deliberations. The context of the instruction suggests that the court was attempting to cure what may have been a veiled reference at Defendant's silence. 47 The Government argues that the prosecution was simply responding to defense counsel's statements. Throughout closing and rebuttal arguments, defense counsel repeatedly suggested to the jury that the prosecution had not explained why Defendant would commit this crime. For example: (1) If he wanted to arrange a murder, why would he be there? Why? Why would he add all these problems?; (2) Why would he do all of that if it was for murder? It wasn't. [Webb] knew about the money.; (3) So why, if he's plotting to kill her, does he do this short of two years? The Government argues that its statement that there is no innocent why was a direct response to those questions, keying on the specific term repeatedly emphasized by defense counsel. 48 It is possible that prosecution was attempting to respond properly to defense counsel's closing argument. It is also possible that the prosecution was, at the same time, pointing out that Defendant had not made himself available to answer such questions. At best, it is unclear what the prosecution intended or what the jury would perceive from the comment. The court's quick instruction in this ambiguous situation sufficiently eliminated any threat of the potential burden-shifting or prejudice that Defendant alleges. 49 AFFIRMED.