Opinion ID: 2031543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Burdening the Right to Silence

Text: Under the rule announced by the majority today, the right to silence, which this court has repeatedly held attaches at arrest or during police questioning prior to arrest, is diminished nearly to the point of meaninglessness for a defendant who later chooses to testify. It is reduced to near meaninglessness because of the cost involved in asserting the right to silence. Specifically, a defendant's pre- Miranda silence may now be used to impeach the defendant at trial if the defendant chooses to testify. In effect, the majority's holding will compel a potential defendant to speak to authorities, prior to receipt of Miranda warnings, as to facts that could be crucial in a subsequent prosecution, in order to preserve an exculpatory explanation of events at trial. This is in direct contradiction to Art. I, Sec. 8, which guarantees that the exercise of the right to silence will not be used against the one asserting the right. Thus, the rule announced by the majority reduces a right guaranteed under Art. I, Sec. 8 to a conditional right: a defendant's right to silence will only be protected if the defendant later chooses not to testify at trial. The privilege against compelled self-incrimination provides that [n]o person ... may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself. Article I, Sec. 8, Wis. Const. This privilege has been interpreted to include the right to remain silent and not have the exercise of the privilege used by the prosecution at trial. State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 236, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982), citing, State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis. 2d 514, 526, 302 N.W.2d 810 (1981). While the majority recognizes that post- Miranda silence is constitutionally protected at trial under the United States Supreme Court decision of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), under Wisconsin law there is no basis for limiting the protections of the privilege solely to a testifying defendant's post- Miranda silence. This court has acknowledged that an individual's privilege against self-incrimination is not contingent upon receipt of Miranda warnings but is a right conferred by the constitution and exists independent of Miranda. Neely v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 304, 317-18, 272 N.W.2d 381 (Ct. App. 1978), aff'd, 97 Wis. 2d 38, 292 N.W.2d 859 (1980); Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 237, n. 10. Miranda did not create new rights but, rather, held that the constitutional guarantees already accorded a defendant by the fifth and sixth amendments should be explained to the defendant during a critical stage of the criminal proceeding. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 237, n. 10. As recognized in our prior cases, this right attaches during police questioning prior to arrest as well as after arrest and prior to receipt of Miranda warnings. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224; Reichhoff v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 375, 251 N.W.2d 470 (1977). Thus, even though our case law has repeatedly and consistently held that the right against self-incrimination includes the right not to have the silence used by the prosecution at trial, and that the right attaches at arrest or during police questioning prior to arrest, independent of Miranda, nevertheless the majority's holding substantially curtails this privilege for a defendant who later chooses to testify. Furthermore, the majority fails to adequately justify this substantial curtailment of a defendant's Art. I, Sec. 8 rights. For example, the majority states that the protections of the privilege against self-incrimination do not attach to a testifying defendant's pre- Miranda silence because there has been no governmental inducement of silence, as occurs when a defendant receives Miranda warnings. State v. Sorenson, No. 86-0124-CR, majority op. at 258. While this is the oft-cited rationale for analyzing a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, see Doyle, 426 U.S. at 610, it is not a proper justification for denying the protections of a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. The majority also reasons that to protect a testifying defendant's pre- Miranda silence would, wrongfully manipulate the rules of evidence, and cripple the state's ability to address all the evidence presented by the defendant at trial. State v. Sorenson, No. 86-0124-CR, majority op. at 258. Again, our prior cases call into question the validity of this proposition. Specifically, in Reichhoff, we stated that a defendant's silence may just as well indicate his or her reliance on the right to remain silent as it suggests the inference that the defendant's trial testimony is a later fabrication. Reichhoff, 76 Wis. 2d at 383. Thus, given the questionable probative value of the defendant's silence, I fail to see how a constitutional bar on the use of a testifying defendant's pre-trial silence will cripple the state's ability to address the evidence. Further, the majority's reliance on the United States Supreme Court's decision of Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 (1926), does not convince me that the subordination of constitutional rights to evidentiary concerns is warranted under these circumstances. In Raffel, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment is not violated when a defendant who testifies in a retrial is impeached with his prior silence during the first trial. Id. This decision has been significantly undermined by subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions such as Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 468 n. 37 (1966), and other landmark cases in which the Supreme Court has barred the use of a defendant's pre-trial silence on fifth amendment grounds. [1] See also Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (where the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the government from burdening the right not to incriminate oneself by penalizing silence). The majority asserts that the denial of a defendant's Art. I, Sec. 8 protections is compensated by the fact that a testifying defendant, who is impeached with his pre- Miranda silence, has the opportunity to explain such silence on redirect. The majority overlooks the point that an accused has both the right to testify in his own defense, as well as the right to refuse to incriminate himself prior to trial, neither of which should be curtailed absent a compelling justification. Finally, the majority's interpretation of the federal and state constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination exceeds the Supreme Court's own statements on the scope of the privilege. Specifically, in Jenkins, the Supreme Court held, in part, that it was not a violation of the fifth amendment to impeach a testifying defendant with his pre-arrest silence. Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 238. Subsequently, in Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (1982) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that it was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment to impeach a testifying defendant with his post-arrest, pre- Miranda silence. Thus, the Supreme Court has not yet considered whether the protections of the fifth amendment privilege extend to a defendant's silence after arrest and prior to Miranda warnings. Yet, under the majority's holding, any reference to a defendant's post-arrest, pre- Miranda silence is permissible under Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court, when directly faced with the issue of whether the fifth amendment privilege attaches to post-arrest, pre- Miranda silence, may well decide that the privilege and all its corollaries including the right not to have the silence used in any manner by the prosecution, attach to that silence. We are far better to stay with our well developed, well reasoned case law than to follow what we think the Supreme Court will do. It might turn out we are following a phantom. Moreover, should the Supreme Court in the future decide that the fifth amendment privilege does not protect post-arrest, pre- Miranda silence, we are not required to follow them in construing Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and should not do so in light of our previous interpretation of the scope of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. E.g., Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 236; Reichoff, 76 Wis. 2d at 378. As we stated in State v. Doe, 78 Wis. 2d 161, 254 N.W.2d 210 (1977), This court has demonstrated that it will not be bound by the minimums which are imposed by the Supreme Court of the United States if it is the judgment of this court that the Constitution of Wisconsin and the laws of this state require that greater protection of citizens' liberties ought to be afforded. Id. at 172.