Opinion ID: 1949597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comments Concerning Post-Miranda Silence

Text: [¶8] Clark alleges that, during her cross-examination of him, the prosecutor made six improper comments concerning his post-arrest decision to remain silent. Review of the transcript demonstrates that Clark objected to only two of those comments during the trial. In responding to the defendant's objection to one of the statements, the prosecutor offered to confine [her] questions to during the course of this investigation, and the court agreed. Clark asked for no further action by the court. The second instance involved the following colloquy between Clark and the prosecutor: Q. You offered to pay money to somebody at [the bar] if they came forward to talk about seeing Rob. A. If they were questioned and she said that she saw Rob, yes, ma'am. Q. Yes. And thenand then you tell [a detective], don't you: Go check out this woman at [the bar], she saw Rob. So you're hoping they go find this woman and that this woman covers your butt. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. All right. And then you say to [the detective]: Thank you, Lord, thank you, Jesus, he is alive? A. Yeah. Q. Doing your very best to mislead [the detective]. A. (Nods in the affirmative.) Q. You said on your direct examination with regard to what you told your father and your brother, I wouldI thought I would say whatever I needed to have my father help me. A. Yes. Q. You say whatever you need to get out of whatever bind you're in; don't you? A. No, ma'am. Q. Why? Because today you suddenly are seeing the truth, today, a year later? A. When I was taken to the police station, ma'am, I was advised by [my initial lawyer]I wanted to tell them thenI was advised by [my initial lawyer] and then Mr. Vincent not to say anything, to remain silent. Q. So it is their fault? A. No, ma'am. Q. It is their fault that you lied all of that time and that somehow we are hearing about this for the first time? Clark's timely objection to this question was sustained by the trial court. [¶9] Clark asserts that, in the testimony quoted above and in the instance outlined, the prosecutor alluded to Clark's post-arrest, post- Miranda silence during cross-examination, thereby implicating the prohibition against discussing an accused's right to remain silent. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976) (holding that the use of the defendant's silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings, for impeachment purposes violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). As noted, however, Clark objected to both statements, and the court correctly sustained both objections. Again, Clark never requested a curative instruction or a mistrial. In both instances, where there were no requests for curative instructions, the trial court's actions were appropriate responses to the questioning and, therefore, there was no error. [¶10] With respect to the four other comments made during cross-examination that allegedly concerned Clark's post-arrest silence, but to which the defense did not object, because the prosecutor's comments did not rise to the level of being improper, there is also no error. See Pelletier, 673 A.2d at 1330.