Document: 447 U.S. 404 100 S.Ct. 2180 65 L.Ed.2d 222 Charles ANDERSONv.Glenn CHARLES. No. 79-1377. Decided June 16, 1980. Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, See 448 912, 101 27. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Glenn was arrested in Grand Rapids, Mich., while driving a stolen car. The car belonged to Theodore Ziefle, who had been strangled death his Ann Arbor home less than week earlier. respondent charged with first-degree murder. At trial the Circuit Court of Washtenaw County, State presented circumstantial evidence linking crime. found Ziefle's and some other personal property. also owned clothing like that worn by man last seen victim, he boasted witnesses killed Police Detective Robert LeVanseler testified interviewed shortly after arrest. After giving Miranda warnings, asked him about automobile. According LeVanseler, said stole from vicinity Hill Streets, two miles local bus station. 2 own behalf. On direct examination, stated took unattended automobile parking lot Kelly's Tire Co. Arbor. cross-examination, following colloquy occurred: 3 "Q. Now, this Company, that's right next station, isn't it? 4 "A. That's correct. 5 And, station are County Jail they not? 6 They are. 7 when you're standing looking out window you can look see Tire, 8 9 So, you've plenty opportunity from—well, first spent time Jail, haven't you? 10 Quite bit. 11 have Tire? 12 right. 13 cars being parked there, right? 14 15 Is where got idea come up story location? No, reason I came is because it's truth. 16 It's truth? 17 18 Don't think rather odd if it were truth didn't forward tell anybody at arrested, car? 19 don't. 20 You don't odd? 21 wasn't auto theft, 22 Didn't possibly would something do charge murder? 23 When tried talk my attorney wouldn't let me just keep quiet. 24 This recent fabrication yours [sic ] 25 No isn't. 26 Well, told back on Street? 27 Never spoke LeVanseler. 28 did? 29 Right, except Hall Price there then tape." Trial Transcript 302-304. 30 jury convicted Michigan Appeals affirmed, People v. Charles, 58 Mich.App. 371, 227 N.W.2d 348 (1975), Supreme denied leave appeal, 397 Mich. 815 (1976). sought writ habeas corpus United States District for Eastern Michigan. withheld writ, but divided panel Sixth reversed. held "the prosecutor's questions [respondent's] post-arrest failure officers same violated due process" under rule Doyle Ohio, 426 610, 96 2240, 49 91 610 F.2d 417, 422 (6 Cir. 1979).1 prison warden now petitions certiorari. We grant petition, proceed forma pauperis, reverse judgment Appeals. 31 In Doyle, we Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment prohibits impeachment basis defendant's silence warnings. case involved defendants made no postarrest statements their involvement crime.2 Each framed. prosecutor why not frameup police upon concluded such fundamentally unfair warnings inform person remain silent assure him, least implicitly, will be used against him. U.S., 618-619, S.Ct., 2245; Jenkins Anderson, 231, 239-240, 2124, 2129-2130, 86. 32 bars use criminal defendant maintained receipt governmental assurances. But does apply cross-examination merely inquires into prior inconsistent statements. Such questioning makes voluntarily speaks receiving has induced silent. As subject matter statements, remained all. Agee, 597 350, 354-356 (CA3) (en banc), cert. denied, 442 944, 99 2889, 61 315 (1979); Mireles, 570 1287, 1291-1293 (CA5 1978); Goldman, 563 501, 503-504 (CA1 1977), 434 1067, 98 1245, 55 768 (1978). 33 case, recognized could questioned testimony. court therefore approved "latter portion above quoted . ." F.2d, 421. earlier exchange" concerned "separate issu[e]" respondent's "failure arresting jury." Ibid. court's view, these unconstitutional inquiries silence. Thus, parts. It applied bar recounted trial. 34 believe bifurcated so neatly. colloquy, taken as whole, "not refe[r] exercise silent; [it asks] [respondent] why, [his testimony] true, officer decedent's tire store instead telling street." Mich.App., 381, N.W.2d, 354. Any ambiguity initial quickly resolved explicit reference LeVanseler's testimony, which heard only few hours before. designed draw meaning silence, elicit an explanation statement. 35 conclude facts case. descriptions events may involve "silence" insofar omits included version. require any formalistic understanding "silence," find adopt view 36 Reversed. 37 Mr. Justice BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissents affirm reasons its opinion. Neither nor state courts addressed question whether should retroactively. Although petitioner claims limited prospective application, Stovall Denno, 388 293, 87 1967, 1199 (1967), indication claim raised below. Moreover, asserts Doyle's prohibition law long before our disposition merits controversy, express retroactivity question. One nothing officers, "What's all about?" 615, n. 5, 2243. arrest, exclaimed "you crazy," or "I know what talking about." Id., 622-623, 4, 2246-2247 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Both dissent analyzed process both issue "does silent" legally entitled so. 620, 2245 dissenting); id., 616-619, 2244-2245; 621, 622, 626, 2246, 2247, 2248 event, neither inquiry exclamation contradicted later

Category: 0