Document: 435 U.S. 333 98 S.Ct. 1091 55 L.Ed.2d 319 Ensio Ruben LAKESIDE, Petitioner,v.State of OREGON. No. 76-6942. Argued Jan. 18, 1978. Decided March 22, Syllabus 1. The giving by a state trial judge, over criminal defendant's objection, cautionary instruction that the jury is not to draw any adverse inference from decision testify in his behalf does violate privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 336-341. (a) Though Griffin v. California, 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106, Court stated "comment on refusal testify" violates constitutional privilege, was there concerned only with comment, whereas here very purpose remove jury's deliberations influence unspoken inferences. 338-339. (b) Petitioner's contention such an may encourage inferences like his, where defense presented through several witnesses, would require indulgence, which federal law cannot rest, dubious speculative assumptions (1) jurors have noticed failure will therefore their own; (2) totally disregard judge's instruction. 339-340. 2. challenged deprive objecting defendant right counsel interfering attorney's strategy. To hold otherwise implicate almost every permissible ruling judge if made objection lawyer. 341-342. 277 Or. 569, 561 P.2d 612, affirmed. Phillip M. Margolin, Portland, Or., for petitioner. Thomas H. Denney, Salem, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 petitioner did t ke witness stand at charge court. Over instructed petitioner's testify. question before us whether violated Constitution. 2 * brought Oregon court escape second degree.1 evidence showed he had been inmate Multnomah County Correctional Institution, minimum-security facility County, Ore. On June 16, 1975, received special overnight pass requiring him return 10 o'clock following evening. He return. theory defense, supported testimony psychiatrist three lay criminally responsible institution.2 3 At conclusion evidence, informed chambers intended include jury: 4 "Under laws this State has option take or her own behalf. If chooses testify, circumstance gives rise no presumption defendant, must be considered you determining guilt innocence." 5 Defense objected instruction, and, after it given, colloquy took place chambers: 6 "[Defense Counsel]: . I one exception. 7 "I Chambers prior closing statement. told want effect doesn't stand, because felt that's waving red flag front jury. 8 "THE COURT: orally request just instructing give usual are drawn failing 9 "The necessary order properly protect therefore, exception." Appeals reversed conviction ordered new ground "the better rule instructions ostensibly designed benefit knowledgeable competent counsel." 25 Or.App. 539, 542, 549 1287, 1288. Supreme reinstated conviction, holding rights defendant. 612. 11 then sought review Court, claiming infringed upon both compelled incriminate himself, assistance counsel. Because conflicting decisions other courts,3 we granted certiorari, 434 889, 391, 54 275. II A. 12 Amendment commands person "shall case himself." This guarantee held applicable States Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 1489, 653.4 That case, decided 1964, established same standards" attach "in either proceeding." Id., 11, S.Ct., 1495. Less than year later 653, violation tell supports unfavorable him.5 13 In Griffin, prosecutor encouraged respond him. And as might expected explain, could taken " 'into consideration tending indicate truth indicating among reasonably therefrom those more probable.' 610, 1230. setting aside judgment Constitution "forbids comment prosecution accused's silence guilt." 615, 1233.6 expressly reserved "on accused can disregarded." 1233 n. 6. It settled Oregon, however, absolute Patton, 208 303 513.7 present rule, nor assert actually given respect erroneous statement law. His argument is, quite simply, protective becomes constitutionally impermissible when objection. 15 argues, said self-incrimination, U.S., 614, 1232, thus "comment" literal language opinion.8 Quite apart semantic argument, contends invasion perceived attention way unless acquiesces. We accept terms basic postulates 16 clear even cursory facts square judge—"comment 1233. reasoned amounted "a penalty imposed courts exercising privilege. cuts down making its assertion costly." 1232. 17 By definition, element some kind compulsion." Hoffa United States, 385 293, 304, 87 408, 414, 374. concluded unconstitutional compulsion inherent were free ask stand.9 But exercise entirely different order. Such provide pressure found Griffin. contrary, strange indeed conclude provision protect. 18 maintains, whatever beneficent most cases, cases silence, objects it. Specifically, one, hope notice himself circumstances, says, "waving jury." 19 indulgence two doubtful assumptions: First, not, own;10 second, affirmatively weight what they consider all.11 Federal rest so these. 20 Moreover, simile accepted, follow these circumstances self-incrimination. jurors' concepts misunderstood, reasonable doubt burden proof. instruct them meaning different. 21 wise each course, forbid judges doing matter Amendments.12 B 22 based Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799; Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 92 2006, 32 530. violated, refused lawyer's question, § strategy assertedly studious avoidance mention fact testified. 23 ingenious but, law, falls once primary rejected. sum, itself accurate, counsel's Amendments, denied gave mean implicated wholly 24 adversary system justice, essential never understood confer power veto actions judge. counsel, who ultimate responsibility conduct fair lawful trial. '[T]he mere moderator, but governor assuring proper questions law.' Quercia 289 466, 469, 53 698, 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933)." Geders 425 80, 86, 96 1330, 1334, 47 592. determined duty interest. do so, Yet argues means lawyer object proposition precious though be, operate prevent principles govern administration justice. 26 For reasons discussed opinion, 27 ordered. 28 BRENNAN part case. 29 STEVENS, dissenting. 30 Experience teaches people formally charged crime guilty; yet presume innocence until over. also justifies remain silent face serious accusation something hide probably juries inference. protections afforded Due Process Clause impose significant cost prove beyond without aid testimony. justified paramount importance protecting small minority persons—those innocent—from wrongful conviction. 31 predicated assumption innocent persons guilty trials.1 Every knows truthful denials incredible jury—either improbability explanation, under cross-examination, reveal about associates. decide shall become himself. Even convinced exonerate him, motivated desire risk override couns l's client's best interest.2 wisely commits critical lawyer, rather least reasons. greater access information bearing normally have. Second, solely concern interests; inevitably society's interest convicting well innocent. choice, make. State. 33 accurate form forbidden Constitution.3 "costly," ruled, comments similar kind, degree, contempt thumbscrew. 1232-1233. Of "almost certain prejudice else happens courtroom";4 despite contrary. Although "cost" eliminated, stands government add unnecessarily mute. Reasonable men differ wisdom holding.5 still should overturned. 34 trials, sun shining full blaze open eye." Cleaves, 59 Me. 298, 301 (1871). trials—perhaps whole story witnesses prosecutor's especially weak—the focus call undeniably try faithfully obey instructions, connection between often too direct natural resisted. When overlooked it, telling ignore think white bear. 35 thinks "would protect." Ante, 339. Unless words things mouths, applies statements argument. wonder find prosecutor, four times, slightly form, make sure knew killing Caesar, consistent honor.6 36 unrealistic assume always benign effect.7 times costly indeed. So long good strong reason ignoring given. Remarkably, fails identify overriding choice.8 Eliminating costs nothing, advantage calling silence. A waive unwise overrule able waive, leave court, lesser silence.9 Many accepted objection.10 An ungrudging application requires same. 37 respectfully dissent. 38 MARSHALL joins exception first paragraph footnote 5. Section 162.155 Ore.Rev.Stat. (1977) provides, pertinent part: "(1) degree if: "(c) escapes correctional facility." 161.295 provides: time result mental disease defect lacks substantial capacity appreciate criminality conform requirements "(2) [T]he 'mental defect' abnormality manifested repeated antisocial conduct." generally ov r violation. See, e. g., Williams, 172 U.S.App.D.C. 290, 295, 521 F.2d 950, 955; McGann, 431 1104, 1109 (CA5); Rimanich, 422 817, 818 (CA7); cf. Mengarelli Marshal ex rel Dist. Nevada, 476 617 (CA9); Smith, 392 302 (CA4). contrast, held, although terms, prejudicial error. Russell State, 240 Ark. 97, 398 S.W.2d 213 (reversible error); People Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 61 Cal.Rptr. 821 (proscribed 106); Gross 261 Ind. 489, 306 N.E.2d 371 (violates Amendment); Kimball, 176 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa) (may spirit ). overruled long-settled doctrine Twining New Jersey, 211 78, 14, Adamson 332 46, 67 1672, 91 1903. See Snyder Massachusetts, 291 105, 330, 332, 78 674; Cohen Hurley, 366 117, 127-129, 81 954, 156. practice previously subject considerable academic professional controversy. Note, Comment Defendant's Failure Take Stand, 57 Yale L.J. 145 (1947); Bruce, Right Defendant Testify, Mich.L.Rev. 226 (1932). Indeed, enjoyed approval American Law Institute Bar Association. ALI Proceedings 202, 203 (1931); 56 A.B.A.Rep. 137-159 130-141 (1934). issue sanctioned Model Code Evidence Uniform Rules Evidence. Evidence, Rule 201 (1942); 23(4) (1953). Tehan U. S. rel. Shott, 382 406, 86 459, 453, California retrospective application. statutory Bruno 308 287, 60 198, 257. relies remark dissenting Gainey, 63, 73, 754, 761, 658: "or, sees fit, choose anyone." reliance misplaced. Gainey involve Amendment; expressed author's understanding statute, Constitution; perhaps important, subscribed Member Compulsion Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 1891, 358, required chose ahead othe witnesses. Thus decision—whether testify—at point know helpful 610-611, 1894-95. noted inevitable. Jeremy Bentham wrote 150 years ago: "[B]etween delinquency hand, inquiry other, manifest connexion; connexion constant inseparable." J. Bentham, Rationale Judicial 209 (1827). Wigmore, many others, point: "What plea support? layman's suggestion resort instance confession crime." 2272, p. 426 (McNaughton rev. 1961). As remarked before: "[W]e attained certitude human mind justify dogmatic jurors, admonished, neither heed ." supra, 294, 201. More 50 ago, Judge Learned Hand dealt single sentence: "It requests subject, say nothing it; does, error, carries absurdity." Becher 45, 49 (CA2). "But act framed due regard prefer rely wish safely venture Excessive timidity, nervousness facing others attempting explain transactions suspicious character, offences confuse embarrass increase prejudices however honest, would, willingly placed stand. tenderness weakness causes mentioned refuse witness, particularly compromised association declares action create him." Wilson 149 60, 66, 765, 766, 650. referring prohibition But, 613-614, 106: "If 'Fifth Amendment' substituted 'act' 'statute,' Self-Incrimination reflected." defendants finding being whom love fear. dissent Stewart White. believe majority join today's opinion. Davis, 437 928, 933 (CA7 1971). today cites scholarly materials, prepared 1930's 1940's, cited Compare ante, 337 5, 622 nn. 6-8, 1237 6-8. list much longer. fact, roster scholars reservations expanding read honor roll legal profession. Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Prodere, Harv.L.Rev. 71, 75-88 (1891); Corwin, Court's Construction Clause, 191, 207 (1930); Pound, Legal Interrogation Persons Accused Suspected Crime, J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 1014 (1934); Friendly, Tomorrow: Case Constitutional Change, U.Cin.L.Rev. 671 (1968); W. Schaefer, Suspect Society 59-76 (1967); Traynor, Devils Criminal Detection, Detention, Trial, U.Chi.L.Rev. 657, 677 (1966). Cf. Shakespeare, Julius Act III, Sc. II: "Here, Brutus (For honourable man; all, all men) Come speak Caesar's funeral. my friend, faithful me: says ambitious; man. hath captives home Rome, Whose ransoms general coffers fill: Did Caesar seem ambitious? poor cried, wept: Ambition sterner stuff: You see Lupercal thrice kingly crown, Which refuse: ambition? And, sure, man." sake comparison, reported case: 'I recall offered Now, purpose. offer to; owed evidence; proof throughout Now lawsuit fashion ought tried. evidence. any, off can't punish man right. emphasis fact: permit speculate why not. exercised position during your didn't know. extent id deal a'tall testify.' Caron, 288 N.C. 467, 471-472, 219 S.E.2d 68, 71 (1975), cert. denied, 971, 2168, 48 794. Deciding harm easy task. deciding all. How far deviates course charted seen comparing reasoning analysis earlier followed faithfully. wanted Since sequestered opportunistic shading match Despite avoiding perjury, struck relying 611, 1894. thought planned weak, advance, Tennessee Brooks, action; none. compulsive force best; plain. true asserts, surely wrong. absurd sort 341 12. (CA2 1924). foresee developments nearer hand. Bruno, 105 921 1939), example, joined affirming penalize remaining silent. certiorari reversed. decided, portion Hand's belief "[i]t it." F.2d, 49. Hampton, 394 Mich. 437, 231 654 (1975); (1974); White, 285 A.2d 832 (Me.1972); Villines 492 343 (Okl.Crim.App.1971); (Iowa 1970); (1966); Horrigan, al.App.2d 519, 403 (1967). (CA4 1968).

Category: 0