Opinion ID: 1966339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Judge's Comments Proper

Text: In this appeal, Richards first claim is that the Family Court committed reversible error when it commented on his failure to testify. According to Richards, the trial judge violated the Fifth Amendment by impermissibly considering Richards' decision to remain silent as evidence of Richards' guilt. Since Richards did not present this contention to the Family Court, that argument has been waived on appeal unless Richards can demonstrate plain error. [4] After the State rested its case, Richards exercised his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. His attorney did not present any other evidence. The Family Court then heard closing arguments from both counsel. After a short recess, the trial judge announced her verdict, finding Richards delinquent as charged of all three offenses (Burglary in the Second Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Misdemeanor Theft less than $1,000). Richards' criminal responsibility for burglary and theft was premised upon his liability as an accomplice. [5] The sentencing phase of the proceedings began immediately after the verdict was announced. Before sentence was imposed, however, Richards' attorney requested an opportunity for Richards' father to address the court. Richards' father advised the trial judge that he disagreed with the delinquency verdicts because he thought there were inconsistencies in the testimony offered by the three juvenile prosecution witnesses and because his son had told him he was not involved: If my son is saying he didn't do it and the other three is saying he did, there is some type of doubt because if he's telling me the truth, and that's the way I raise my children, then I'm taking it 100 percent before the law and hope that something comes up out of this. In response to those comments by Richards' father, the trial judge stated: Mr. [Richards], I agree with you. It's very rare  let me explain how I agree with you. It's very rare that people come into my court and all testify to the same exact story. As a result, it's up to me to make the facts mesh together with who I believe is credible or not. Now while your son may have told you he did not commit the crime I didn't hear any testimony from your son. And that's a choice you all made but I did not hear his version of what happened. He did not testify. So I can't consider  I'm not blaming him  I'm not accessing any type of level as to  but all I'm saying is I had three stories and the way I made them fit is I made them fit believing number one and two who testified. Number three said he wasn't there for the second trip. So if he wasn't there  I'm saying the third guy who testified, he wasn't there so he doesn't know what happened on that second trip back to the house. So if I don't listen to him because he said he wasn't there, I'm left with the first two guys who testified who said your son was there. When this explanation was concluded, the trial judge proceeded with Richards' sentencing. There was no defense objection to any of the post-verdict remarks of the trial judge and Richards' attorney did not move for a mistrial on the basis of those remarks. In Griffin v. California , the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a prosecutor from commenting on a defendant's silence as evidence of guilt and prohibits a trial judge from instructing the jury that a negative inference may be drawn from the defendant's failure to testify. [6] Richards argues that The trial judge makes clear that she drew a negative inference from Mr. Richards's election not to testify. She considered the fact that she never actually heard from the defendant. Although not a typical Griffin violation, it is clear that part of the reasoning for finding guilt was the defendant's decision not to testify. According to Richards: The trial judge directly referred to the Defendant's silence as affecting her decision. There is no doubt of prejudice to the Defendant since this was a rare case where the court explicitly articulates that part of its reasoning was that the Defendant was not heard from. In United States v. Robinson , the United States Supreme Court explained that its holding in Griffin does not mean that any reference to an accused's silence is impermissible per se. [7] In Robinson, the Supreme Court held that, where the prosecutor's reference to the defendant's foregone opportunity to testify is a fair response to a claim made by the defense counsel that the defendant did not have the opportunity to explain himself, there is no violation of the Fifth Amendment. [8] In Robinson, the defendant was charged with mail fraud, and elected not to testify at trial. [9] During summation, his counsel repeatedly claimed that the Government had denied Robinson the opportunity to explain himself. [10] In rebuttal, the prosecutor stated, He could have taken the stand and explained it to you. [11] In Robinson, the United States Supreme Court held that this was a fair response by the prosecutor in the context of the defendant's closing argument, and did not constitute error. [12] Robinson established the principle that judicial review of Fifth Amendment Griffin claims based upon prosecutorial comment must be examined in context.  [13] This Court has previously applied Griffin and Robinson in reviewing challenges to a prosecutor's statements to a jury about a defendant's failure to testify. [14] We have held that, to constitute reversible error, the prosecutor's comment must be uninvited, must create an improper inference of guilt, and must be prejudicial. [15] In this case, we hold that same context principle established in Robinson for judicial review of comments by prosecutors, also applies to comments about the defendant's silence that are made by a judge who conducts a bench trial. Although this Court has not previously reviewed challenges to comments made by a trial judge about a defendant's decision to remain silent, that issue has been addressed by appellate courts in both Georgia and Ohio. [16] As in Richards' case, both of those proceedings were also bench trials. [17] In each of those cases, the trial judge's comments on the defendant's silence were made to emphasize that the State's evidence was uncontroverted. [18] In Corsini v. State , when finding Corsini guilty, the trial judge mentioned that there may have been reasonable doubt as to Corsini's guilt had Corsini testified on her own behalf, but since she did not testify, the State's evidence was uncontradicted and the judge had no doubt as to guilt. [19] The Georgia Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge had not improperly considered Corsini's failure to testify in the context of explaining that there was no evidence contradicting the State's evidence. [20] In City of Akron v. Thomas, an Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed the trial judge's comment at the conclusion of the trial. [21] The judge noted that, although the defendant did not have to testify, none of the evidence against the defendant had been controverted or denied. [22] The Ohio Appellate Court found no error in the judge's comment because it was nothing more than an acknowledgment that the evidence presented was uncontroverted. [23] The context in which the trial judge made the comments challenged by Richards on appeal is important and dispositive. The trial judge had already announced her verdict. She was attempting to respond to further argument about Richards' innocence that was being made by Richards' father prior to sentencing. The trial judge neither explicitly nor implicitly indicated that her verdict was based on any consideration of the impermissible factor of Richards exercising his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent at the trial. To the contrary, the trial judge explicitly stated that she did not blame Richards or make any negative assessment regarding Richards because of his decision not to testify. The record reflects that, in responding to statements by Richards' father, the trial judge accurately observed that she had no basis to assess the credibility of Richards' out-of-court denial of participation in the crime to his father, because no such testimonial evidence by Richards was ever presented to her during the trial. When made in the context of responding to Richards' father, the trial judge's comments about Richards' decision to remain silent at trial were entirely proper. [24] Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge's comments did not infringe Richards' Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.