Document: 380 U.S. 609 85 S.Ct. 1229 14 L.Ed.2d 106 Eddie Dean GRIFFIN, Petitioner,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 202. Argued March 9, 1965. Decided April 28, Rehearing Denied June 7, See 381 957, 1797. Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Albert W. Harris, Jr., San Francisco, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted murder in first degree after a jury trial California court. He did not testify at on issue guilt, though he separate trial1 penalty. The court instructed stating that defendant has constitutional right to testify. But it told jury:2 2 'As any evidence or facts against him which can reasonably be expected deny explain because within his knowledge, if does if, testify, fails such evidence, may take failure into consideration as tending indicate truth and indicating among inferences drawn therefrom those unfavorable are more probable.' 3 It added, however, no inference could respecting had knowledge. stated knowledge create presumption guilt nor by itself warrant an relieve prosecution its burden proof. 4 been seen with deceased evening her death, placing alley where body found. prosecutor made much petitioner testify: 5 'The certainly knows whether Essie Mae this beat up appearance time left apartment went down her. 6 'What kind man is would want have sex woman she left? 'He know that. how got alley. blood bottom concrete steps. long box. wig off. mistreated walked away from place cool cucumber when saw Villasenor conscious own wanted get damaged injured woman. 7 'These things fit stand explain. 8 'And whole world, anybody know, know. 9 'Essie dead, can't tell you side story. won't.' 10 death penalty imposed Supreme Court affirmed. 60 Cal.2d 182, 32 Cal.Rptr. 24, 383 P.2d 432. case here writ certiorari we granted, 377 989, 84 1926, 12 1043, consider comment violated Self-Incrimination Clause Fifth Amendment applicable States Fourteenth Malloy v. Hogan, 378 1, 1489, 653, decided affirmed present conviction.3 11 If were federal trial, reversible error committed. Wilson United States, 149 60, 13 765, 37 L.Ed. 650, so holds. said, decision rested Amendment, but Act Congress, now 18 U.S.C. § 3481.4 That indeed fact, states. And see Adamson People State California, 332 46, 50, n. 6, 67 1672, 1674, 91 1903; Bruno 308 287, 294, 198, 200, 257. beginning, end, our inquiry. question remains whether, statute not, rule, approved violates Amendment. We think does. substance rule allows privilege tendering accused No formal offer proof other situations; prosecutor's court's acquiescence equivalent acceptance. stated: '* * act framed due regard also who might prefer rely upon innocence law gives every one, wish witnesses. one safely venture witness stand, entirely innocent charge him. Excessive timidity, nervousness facing others attempting transactions suspicious character, offenses charged him, will often confuse embarrass increase rather than remove prejudices honest, therefore willingly placed stand. statute, tenderness weakness causes mentioned refuse ask witnesses, particularly they some compromised their association others, declares criminal action request shall him.' U.S., p. 66, 766. words 'fifth Amendment' substituted 'act' 'statute' spirit reflected. For refusal remnant 'inquisitorial system justice,' Murphy Waterfront Comm., 52, 55, 1594, 1596, 678, outlaws.5 courts exercising privilege. cuts making assertion costly. peculiarly accused's event natural irresistible, magnify asserting consitutional Modesto, 62 436, 452—453, 42 417, 426—427, 398 753, 762—763. What infer, given help court, thing. infer solemnizes silence quite another. always irresistible brought out Modesto itself: 15 'Defendant contends reason refuses prior convictions introduced impeach ((Cal.) Code Civ.Proc. 2051) unable accusations. true fear prejudice jury, another possible stand.' Id., 453, Cal.Rptr., 427, P.2d, 763. 16 said supra, 11, 1495, 'the same standards must determine either state proceeding justified.' literal sense hold direct application Federal Government bearing forbids instructions guilt.6 17 Reversed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took part case. 19 HARLAN, concurring. 20 I agree judicial bars adverse prosecutors judges defendant's accorded amendment. last Term's applies all refinements, legitimate escape today's concur it. do so, great reluctance, since me exemplifies creeping paralysis Court's recent adoption 'incorporation' doctrine infecting operation system. my concurring result Pointer Texas, 400. 408, 1065, 1070. 21 While accusatorial inquisitorial process fundamental 'liberty' guaranteed Brother STEWART dissent, post, page, fully demonstrates nocomment 'might lost, justice still done,' Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 58 149, 152, 82 288. As 'non-fundamental' (cf. Pointer, 409, 1070), Malloy, apply no-comment States. 22 put forward single argument applying such, States: 23 'It incongruous different validity claim *, depending asserted Therefore, 1495. (Emphasis added.) 24 My answer then (378 27, 1503) 'incongruity,' limits fairness, heart powers responsibilities Governments congruent, under Constitution intende be. 25 recently suggested measuring procedures fairness reflected landmark Twining New Jersey, 211 78, 29 14, 53 97, 'would require intervene considerable lack predictability consequent likelihood friction,' 413—414, S.Ct., 1073 (concurring Goldberg, J.). This approach requirements federalism, unlike evinced Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 564, apparently leads, cases like this, conclusion way eliminate friction systems attempt working harmony, override them altogether. 26 Although compelled decision, am free express hope eventually return paths which, until recently, followed throughout history. 27 STEWART, whom WHITE joins, dissenting. 28 chose first-degree Article I, 13, establishes self-incrimination further provides: '(I)n case, testifies testimony commented counsel, considered jury.' 30 In conformity provision, emphasized person crime public forum ordinarily truthfully so.1 Also judge following terms: 31 Thus, rests decision. probable. connection, should noted need certain unreasonable draw evidence. proving essential element beyond reasonable doubt.' found guilty charged, conviction California.2 33 judge's deprived such. ago Due Process force forbid 14; 1672. holds, provision Amendment's injunction 'shall himself,' less year trials several 34 With both candor accuracy, concedes before us impression here.3 arisen before, held only proceedings, matter covered specific Congress effect ever defendants permitted trials.4 198; 765; supra. 35 'compelled himself.' Compulsion focus Certainly, compulsion detected procedure, dramatically palpable nature involved historically gave rise guarantee. When suspect High Commission Star Chamber, commanded whatever asked subjected farreaching deeply probing inqury effort ferret unknown frequently unsuspected crime. declined pain incarceration, banishment, mutilation. spoke falsely, subject punishment. Faced formidable array alternatives, speak unquestionably coerced.5 36 Those lurid realities behind enactment far cry us. stretches concept bounds, exist derives choice counsel. support procedure compel say: costly.' Exactly what consists clear. understand problem, becomes aware chosen defense, will, course, realize even goes unmentioned. Since counsel creating awarencess, saying places incriminate himself, describe cannot readily perceive. apparent me, realistic view process, disadvantage practice How detrimental limiting carefully controlling language instruction roam large untutored instincts guide it, broad guilt? expressly cautioned 'does guilt'; admonished 'relieve providing crime,' finally warned prosecution's remained 'beyond Whether limitations observed without benefit protective shielding open real doubt. 38 Moreover, say balance advantage lie attorneys' discussion matter. doubt seek encourage drawing defendant. However, equally opportunity various reasons why thus rebut uneducated assumption accusations made. 39 coercive device impairs self-incrimination, means articulating bringing light rational fact inescapably impressed jury's consciousness. designed protect unwarranted uninformed jury; recognize articulate believes probative facts. Surely important interest throwing transpires course very dangers shape legal ascertain truth. 40 allowing hardly idiosyncratic aberration. Model Evidence, Uniform Rules Evidence sanction use procedures.6 endorsed resolution American Bar Association Law Institute,7 weight scholarly opinion.8 41 formulation procedural rules govern administration properly local concern. general supervisory power over matters; function prevent violations Constitution's commands. honored command 'be so. whenever exercises right, members bound silence. constitution human mind. Without instructions, danger exists unfairly broad. Some go unchecked, forbidding stand.9 Other dealt variety ways, indicates. Ante, note 3, pp. 611-612. differ, policy, deal disapprove case.10 But, obeyed, matters policy decide. affirm judgment. Penal 190.1, two issues. provides part: later 'comment' squared 1489. overwhelming consensus opposed legislatures 44 recognized is, 'an unwarrantable line argument.' Howard, S.C. 197, 203, S.E. 481, 483. Wigmore, 2272, (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961 1964 Supp.). Of six permit comment, two, Ohio, give permission explicit qualification self-incrimination. Cal.Const. Art. 13; Ohio Const. 10. Jersey permits Corby, N.J. 106, 145 A.2d 289; cf. Garvin, 268, 208 402; contains embodying (see Laba Newark Bd. Educ., 364, 389, 129 273, 287; White, 158, 168 169, 142 65, 70). absence puts Iowa six. Ferguson, 226 361, 372—373, 283 N.W. 917, 923. Connecticut prosecutor. Heno, 119 Conn. 29, 174 A. 181, 94 A.L.R. 696. Mexico holds entitled indulge testify'. N.M.Stat.Ann. 41—12—19; Sandoval, 59 N.M. 85, 279 850. Section 3481 reads follows: 'In persons commission proceedings martial inquiry State, District, Possession Territory, shall, request, competent witness. His make 25, 1948, c. 645, Stat. 833. legislative history shows designed, inter alia, bar commenting Frye Maine, spokesman bill, 'That Massachusetts, proposed adopt States.' Cong.Rec. 385. reference Mass.Stat. 1866, 260, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., 233, 20, cl. Third (1959), almost identical 3481. Commonwealth Harlow, 110 Mass. 411; Scott, 123 239; Opinion Justices, 300 620, N.E.2d 662. Our today prohibits innovation, previous occasion majority indicated acceptance proposition. was, here, proscribed California's practice. four dissenters (Black, Douglas, Rutledge, JJ.) answered affirmative. A fifth member Court, Frankfurter, opinion: 'For historical limited immunity common duty written Bill Rights, prepared that, immunity, forbidden prosecutions.' 61, 1680. agreed point, Justices Vinson, Reed, Jackson, Burton States; joined (the assumed barred disclaimed intention decide point. 1674). reserve require, 257, disregarded. excerpt quoted opinion, ante, 610-611. p.2d plenary us; upheld constitutionality thoroughly reasoned Chief Traynor. 753. reached ruled Reed's clear contravene 'without *of ruling issue.' dissenting Black Douglas read 'strongly (implying) itself, testify,' majority's assumption, thereby giving approval dictum. evident felt necessary characterized 'addition,' expression guarantee concurring, three who, dicta, embraced today. 30, amended, generally 2250 1961). Rule 201 (1942); 23(4) (1953). 56 A.B.A.Rep. 137—159 (1931); 130—141 (1934); Proceedings A.L.I. 202, 203 (1931). Bruce, Right Comment Failure Defendant Testify, Mich.L.Rev. 226; Dunmore, Accused Yale L.J. 464; Hadley, Criminal America, A.B.A.J. 674, 677; Hiscock, Procedure York, Col.L.Rev. 253, 258—262; Note, Defendant's Take Stand, 57 145. See, e.g., Pearce, Minn., 226, 652, 1065; Tines Commonwealth, 77 S.W. 363, KyL.Rep. 1233; Hanks 248 Ky. S.W.2d 394. additions influenced become terms prescribe form argued denied.

Category: 0