Document: 49 L.Ed.2d 91 96 S.Ct. 2240 426 U.S. 610 Jefferson DOYLE, Petitioner,v.State of OHIO. Richard WOOD, Petitioner, v. State Nos. 75-5014, 75-5015. Argued Feb. 23, 1976. Decided June 17, Syllabus During the course their state criminal trials petitioners, who after arrest were given warnings in line with Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 467-473, 86 1602, 1624-1627, 16 694, took stand and gave an exculpatory story that they had not previously told to police or prosecutor. Over counsel's objection, cross-examined as why arresting officer explanations. Petitioners convicted, convictions upheld on appeal. Held : The use for impeachment purposes petitioners' silence, at time received warnings, violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Post-arrest silence following such is insolubly ambiguous; moreover, it would be fundamentally unfair allow arrestee's used impeach explanation subsequently trial he been impliedly assured, by carry no penalty. Pp. 616-620. Reversed remanded. James R. Willis, Cleveland, Ohio, petitioners. Ronald L. Collins, New Philadelphia, respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 question these consolidated cases whether a prosecutor may seek defendant's story, first trial, cross-examining defendant about his failure have receiving warnings1 arrest. We conclude post-arrest this manner violates due process, therefore reverse both 2 * Doyle Wood arrested together charged selling 10 pounds marihuana local narcotics bureau informant. They convicted Common Pleas Court Tuscarawas County, separate held one week apart. evidence was identical all material respects. 3 State's witnesses sketched picture routine transaction. William Bonnell, well-known "street person" long record, offered assist investigation unit setting up drug "pushers" return support efforts receive lenient treatment latest legal problems. agents agreed. A short later, Bonnell advised arranged "buy" needed $1,750 pay it. Since banks closed short, able collect only $1,320. money left rendezvous, under surveillance four two cars. As planned, met petitioners bar Dover, Ohio. From there, petitioner drove Bonnell's pickup truck nearby town while off obtain then meet them prearranged location Philadelphia. followed truck. When arrived waiting vehicles proceeded parking lot where transaction place. truck, departed Doyle's car. quickly discovered paid $430 less than agreed-upon price, began circling neighborhood looking Bonnell. stopped within minutes Philadelphia acting radioed instructions from agents. One those agents, Kenneth Beamer, scene promptly, Mirandi warnings. search car, authorized warrant, uncovered 4 At trials, defense cross-examination participating aimed primarily establishing limited view lot, none seen actual but standing next car package arm, presumably transaction.2 Each admitted practically everything case except most crucial point: whom. According framed them. arrangement sell marihuana. Dover purpose borrowing necessary money, driving himself decided wanted instead pounds. reached tried explain change mind. grew angry, threw $1,320 into back ensuing chase effort catch find out what about. 5 Petitioners' events presented some difficulty prosecution, entirely implausible there little if any direct contradict it.3 part wide-ranging purposes, undercut explanation, asked each respective frameup Agent Beamer when In Wood, colloquy occurred:4 6 "Q. (By prosecutor.) did arrive scene? 7 "A. (by Wood.) Yes, did. 8 And I assume you him happened you? 9 No. '. You didn't tell Beamer? 11 12 guy put $1,300 your car? 13 No, sir. 14 we can't understand reason anyone chasing around trying give back? 15 that. mean that? 17 Tell what? 18 do are innocent, him? 19 But event bother anything this? 20 sir." 21 Defense timely objections above questions overruled. contained similar exchange, again overruled.5 22 appealed Appeals, Fifth District, alleging, Inter alia, court erred allowing cross-examine silence. Appeals affirmed convictions, stating contentions silence: 23 "This its chief confession substantive guilt rather cross examination witness same earlier opportunity. 24 "We error this. It goes credibility witness." 25 Supreme Ohio denied further review. granted certiorari decide provision Constitution,6 open last Term United States Hale, 422 171, 95 2133, 45 99 (1975), which Federal Courts conflict. See Id., 173 n. 2, S.Ct., 2135. II 26 pleads necessity justification prosecutor's action cases. argues discrepancy between gives rise inference fabricated somewhere along way, perhaps fit seams developed pretrial hearings. Noting prosecution usually has else counter seeks right impeachment. position emphasizes importance crossexamination general, see Brown States, 356 148, 154-155, 78 622, 626-627, 589 (1958), relies upon permitted statements inadmissible because officer's follow Miranda's dictates. Harris York, 401 222, 643, 28 (1971); Oregon Hass, 420 714, 1215, 43 570 (1975); also Walder 347 62, 74 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954). Thus, although does suggest could guilt, contends need present jury information relevant truth fully justifies issue. 27 Despite cross-examination,7 concluded decision compels rejection position. mandated case, prophylactic means safeguarding Amendment rights, Michigan Tucker, 417 433, 443-444, 94 2357, 2363-2364, 41 182 (1974), require person taken custody immediately remain silent, says against him, retained appointed counsel before submitting interrogation. Silence wake nothing more exercise rights. every ambiguous required advise arrested.8 supra, U.S., 177, Ct., 2137. Moreover, true contain express assurance will penalty, implicit receives circumstances, deprivation process person's trial.9 White, concurring judgment 182-183, 2139, very well: "(W)hen informed, requires, attorney wishes, seems me comport permit during call attention insist speak facts time, do, unfavorable might drawn testimony. . Surely Hale informed here well words, trial. Indeed, reasonably case."10 29 hold Amendment.11 claimed circumstances harmless error. Accordingly, reversed causes remanded courts proceedings inconsistent opinion. 30 So ordered. 31 STEVENS, whom BLACKMUN REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 32 assert mention purported "frame" until testified constitutional privilege self-incrimination. am persuaded argument; though merit portion second, believe warrants reversal convictions. 33 Court's rationale characteristics estoppel theory. If (a) (b) (c) presume made reliance advice, (d) certain cases, others,1 key analysis apparently concern warning, intended increase probability response questioning intelligent voluntary, actually deceptive unless honor unstated promise accused's him. 34 my prejudicial warning.2 Nor fact advice lessens probative value makes warning. 35 This defendants' graphically testimony unwitting victims "frameup" participate. defendants framed, almost inexplicable; reason, accepted rules evidence, tantamount prior statement admissible impeachment.3 36 irony warning provides plausible should think responded remained silent relied understanding officers. Instead, however, quite different jumble responses.4 Those negate presumption induced advice. 37 record requires us side product entire collapses. For without waiver, given, suggests unfairness using case. 38 general proposition, tendency salvage witness. truthful witness, consequence stand. Even untruthful, availability puts better judgment, risk deceived unable honest misunderstanding so much exclusion merely provide shield perjury cannot accept rationale. 39 otherwise unobjectionable, notion law 40 argue self-incrimination asking draw constitutionally protected challenge closing argument. A. claim improper referred arrest, testify preliminary hearing, reveal Their applies own other. clear object violation another privilege,5 shall discuss argument 42 rely stood mute face accusations custodial interrogation.6 There reasons adequately First, accurate say "stood accusations." Neither even silent.7 description conversation flagrantly Rather privilege, simply surely mentioned true. That belied 44 Second, dictum footnote Griffin California, 380 609, 85 1229, 106, Amendment, incorporated Fourteenth, prohibited prosecution's chief. ago Raffel 271 494, 46 566, 70 1054, recognized distinction affirmative purposes. expressly despite application federal prosecutions prohibition found Raffel, 496-497, 567-568. Chief Warren, author Miranda, joined 503, squarely valid objection admissibility Government's "with contradiction untruths." 65, 356. ensure integrity truth-determining function adversary provided predicate unbroken decisions holding.8 Although doubt concerning propriety difficult hearing generally Unlike make kind spontaneous comment discovery expected prompt, significant inconsistency adherence take hearing; divulge probably attributable petitioners.10 Nevertheless, overrules 1054,11 free regard defendat's waiver proceeding offer version B 47 portions overstepped permissible bounds. commented "framed," innocence.12 Comment lack plainly proper; proper, ask silence—to argue, effect, innocence. since inferences inextricably intertwined common source, unrealistic former reversible slightest reference latter. context sophisticated impermissible convictions.13 48 consider improper, affirm 694 (1966). totally successful. passed through window testimony, played tape agent seeing arm. retract explained apparent noting focused pass Supra. Trial transcript 10657, Court, (hereafter Tr.), 465-470. Doyle, 10656, 504-507: innocent? Doyle.) innocent. Yes Sir. That's department "(Continuing.) innocence? said how set up? Did Wood? Not recall, matter fact, recall correctly, protesting innocence, today, 'I don't know talking about.' said, 'What's about?' remember, that's thing said. questioning, know, know. knew buy, wrong, going on. Bill frame me, what-have-you. All right, protest innocence time? on." addition, prosecutor, over objections, jury. Closing Argument Prosecutor 13-14, supplementing Tr.; Tr. 515, 526. other trials. dimension asserted post-arrest, petitioner's These averments considerations implicated our disposition unnecessary reach additional issues. recognize, course, prosecutors allowed wide leeway scope frustrate truth-seeking presenting tailored defenses insulated effective challenge. Fitzpatrick 178 304, 315, 944, 948, 1078 (1900). dissent STEVENS expresses giving lessen "probative (a defendant's) ." Post, 621. 2137, noted inherently apart effect several explanations consistent existence explanation. exercised supervisory powers courts. instant unlike come thus occasion powers. necessary, holding above, note considered likely dubious value. somewhat analogous situation Johnson 318 189, 63 549, 87 704 (1943). judge invoke cross-examination. assumed 196, 553, answer proper basis adverse subject prosecutorial comment. granted, erroneously, "the requirements fair trial" Ibid. "An accused having entrapped assertion His real choice one. Elementary fairness misled score." 197, 553. elementary unique system. Cf. Raley 360 423, 437-440, 79 1257, 1265-1267, 1344 (1959). dissenting justification. perceive lies question, thereby implying construe guilt. After formally occurs presence jury, undertake right. saying testifies claims behavior Fairchild, 505 F.2d 1378, 1383 (CA5 1975). acknowledges, "fact arrest." Ante, 619 page, 11. Wood's described petitioners: "I rights law, being couldn't afford one, appoint time." 126. "gave rights" " 'Miranda Warning.' 269. warning: "(The suspect) must warned can attorney, desires." 479, 1630. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1042 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). Petitioner trial: counsel.) placed Yes. 'For sale marijuana.' direct. did, understand. ". 506-507. arrest: Why (Wood) (the officers) Bonnell? Because out. hid mat? officers red light. get hands wasn't guilty, it? suspected just arrived? (W)hen got hell suspicion marijuana crazy. pretty upset. night April felt like today? confused night, How Are mad upset today night? question. feel way happening. framed? putting spot Didn't occur try protect yourself? nobody John time. man walked anything. talk soul rotten sir, best can. say. stunned answered help questions. Wouldn't marvelous not. Do remember What said? want stash hide is, keeping dope front you. Where place? Took place search. angry angry. anyone? started stopped. upset." 424-430. follows: confused, (at arrest). Were upset? Upset confused. $1300 seat? Mainly Jeff (Doyle) me. Of anything? particular incident, weren't innocent incident. Innocent transaction? Or knowledge Up point, Cunningham, eight months year many implications, etc. paper enforcement people busting stuff." 467-469. Massiah 377 201, 206-207, 84 1199, 1203-1204, 246; 2270, pp. 416-417 (McNaughton 1961); cf. Alderman 394 165, 174, 89 961, 967, 176. Cross-examination witness' raise defendant, and, indeed, silent. "In accord penalize individual exercising not, therefore, accusation. 106 (1965); Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 8, 1489, 653 (1964); Comment, U.Chi.L.Rev. 556 Developments Law Confessions, Harv.L.Rev. 935, 1041-1044 Bram 168 532, 562, 183, 194, 568 (1897)." 468 37, 1625. 4, supra. recently carefully opinion, system maintain neither reality nor appearance efficacy judgments rest complete illumination "a partial speculative presentation facts." Nixon, 418 683, 709, 3090, 3108, 1039. insuring led rule voluntarily foregoes testify, presents mitigating subjects reclaim protection selective basis. 1078. "If takes defense, impeached assailed breadth determined '(H)e forth tend favor laying facts.' 626, (citation omitted). impute class acknowledge testifying gain lose ordinary fabrications Reagan 157 301, 304-311, 610, 611-613, 709; Taylor 390 278, 284-285 (CA8 1968) (Blackmun, J.). notes today: "Unless challenge." 617 7. recognition unlawfully seized connection aborted impeaching never associated narcotics, clearly admis- sible partially which, unavailable benefit Term, closely Harris, request lawyer, furnished circumstances. 570. involving cross-examination, insure "traditional truth-testing devices process," York 225, 645, deemed outweigh policies underlying exclusionary rules. follows Preliminary Hearing case? indictment offense, not? believe, Sir, indicted. Arraignment. Is mean? day opportunity hear Remember testified; Captain Deputy-Chief Deputy White testified? lawyer James? Tape recording transcript? proceeding? done attorney. My asked. Sir." 507-508. subjected discussed lawyer? lawyer. heard aware proceedings? listed those? Parts communicated Beamer. been? jail house. protested room. let away friends He friend no, figured good enough acquaintance Little room there. Every before? When? there? then." 470-472. Under determines establish, most, crime committed "probable reasonable cause" "substantial credible evidence" charge defendant. Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2937.12, 2937.13 (Supp.1973). indicted, held. Morris, St.2d 307, 326, 329 N.E.2d 85, 97 (1975). incentive substantial here, proceeding. refer probative; true, persuade dismiss charges advance address constitutionality admitting examination. conspiracy violate National Prohibition Act. An ownership drinking place; ended hung retrial, before. elected making statement, completely waived deciding testify. 499, 568. Subsequent powers, diminished force 99; Stewart 366 81 941, 84; Grunewald 353 391, 77 963, 931. three impeachment; distinguished ground significantly 175-176, 2136-2137; Stewart, 5-7, 943-944; Grunewald, 418-424, 981-984. Two unwarranted easily reconciled reasoning constitutes afforded privilege. Compare t 180, 2138 7, 423-424, 983-984, arguments jury: "Diffuse are; obscure prosecute prosecution. "A typical classic keep mind, considering involved, until, Ladies Gentlemen, anybody connected idea stories Wood. foggiest idea. Both word officials "(continuing) point Indictment innocent; position; somehow, 'set-up.' "So, evaluate Enforcement Officials, deal subsequent "Then 'had' somehow. framed. "Now, fits observed basic, facts. Somehow, So, this, off, them, yet Officers. "It unbelievable. think, go Jury Room, really happened. agree funda- mental sense fairness, set-on, etc., days, say, says, 'You arrest,' truth. demand refuse vehicle, forcing warrant. you're it." 515-516, 519, arguments: "The careful ascertain admit deny state's ever business else. "Yes, land, rightfully so, ladies gentlemen, compelled incriminate themselves. 5th No forced themselves pending. fundamental glad convict mouth days whip beat extract mouth, "But make. policemen "Think - various 12-14, erroneously consent appears failed parties argued issues separately apparent, implicate Fourth independent

Category: 0