Document: 422 U.S. 171 95 S.Ct. 2133 45 L.Ed.2d 99 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.William G. HALE. No. 74—364. Argued April 14, 1975. Decided June 23, Syllabus Following respondent's arrest for robbery he was taken to the police station, where, advised of his right remain silent, made no response an officer's inquiry as source money found on person. Respondent testified at trial and, in effort impeach alibi, prosecutor caused respondent admit cross-examination that had not offered exculpatory information time arrest. The court instructed jury disregard colloquy but refused declare a mistrial. convicted. Court Appeals reversed, holding into prior silence impermissibly prejudiced defense well infringed upon constitutional silent under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. Government, relying Raffel United States, 271 494, 46 566, 70 L.Ed. 1054 contends since chose testify own behalf, it permissible credibility by proving chosen Held: Respondent's during interrogation lacked significant probative value and these circumstances any reference carried with intolerably prejudicial impact. This Court, exercising its supervisory authority over lower federal courts, therefore concludes is entitled new trial. Pp. 176-181. (a) Under this case failure respondent, who just been given warnings, respond custodial about can easily connote reliance support inference testimony later fabrication. supra, distinguished. 176-177. (b) so clearly inconsistent warrant admission evidence 'statement,' manifested facts (1) repeatedly asserted innocence proceedings; (2) being questioned secretive surroundings one also present; (3) target eyewitness identification, 'potential defendant'. Grunewald 353 391, 77 963, 1 931, followed. 177-180. (c) Admission has potential prejudice may assign much more weight defendant's previous than warranted. P. 180. 162 U.S.App.D.C., 305, 498 F.2d 1038, affirmed. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Larry J. Ritchie, respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. tried convicted District Columbia.1 During asked why alibi when shortly after Columbia Circuit 468 n. 37, 1624, 694 (1966). We granted certiorari, 419 1045, 616, 42 639 because conflict among Courts whether defendant be cross-examined interrogation,2 importance question administration justice. 2 find pretrial outweighed impact admitting evidence. Affirming judgment ground, we have occasion reach broader supplied alternative basis decision below. 3 * On 1, 1971, Lonnie Arrington reported attacked robbed group five men. Initially, claimed $65 stolen, changed amount $96 consulting wife. As were preparing accompany through neighborhood search attackers, observed two men identified them assailants. When gave chase, fled immediately captured. victim, Hale robbers. 4 then arrested, silent. He searched possession $158 cash. An officer asked: 'Where did you get money?' response. 5 At took witness stand defense. acknowledged having met shoe store day question. stated that, meeting, approached three inquired money, which replied 'didn't know.' From there went narcotics treatment center, where remained until robbery. According left center friend subsequently purchased narcotics. Shortly transaction they police. feared presence person carrying insisted estranged wife received her welfare check him approximately $150 purchase some orders done several occasions. 6 In Hale's explanation arrest: 7 'Q. Did way indicate (to police) came from? 8 'A. No, I didn't. 9 Why not? 10 didn't feel necessary time.' Government takes position arrest.3 For proposition relies heavily Court's (1926).4 There, second required first failed verdict. privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, accused declined trial, however, refute witness. Over objection, admitted face same earlier proceeding. concluded Raffel's second, could used representations. argues similarly should admissible impeachment purposes. 11 cannot agree. assumption inconsistency underlying absent here. Rather, closely parallel those 931 (1957), conclude principles compel affirmance II 12 A basic rule provides statements preliminary matter, must persuaded are indeed inconsistent. 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 1040 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1970) (hereafter Wigmore). If fails establish threshold between station proof lacks excluded. 13 most ambiguous little force. example, commonly thought lack expressed tacit agreement or disagreement contemporaneous others. See Wigmore 1071. Silence gains persists accusation, assumed such would likely dispute untrue accusation. Failure contest assertion, considered acquiescence only if natural object assertion 1042. confrontation naturally called reply. Accordingly, held admissible. But situation arrestee very different, duty speak case, ordinarily government authorities moments anything does say will court. 14 interrogation, innocent guilty alike—perhaps particularly innocent—may intimidating choose mute. variety reasons influence decision. often emotional confusing circumstances, suspect heard fully understood question, felt need Traynor, Devils Due Process Criminal Detection, Detention, Trial, 33 U.Chi.L.Rev. 657, 676 maintained out fear unwillingness incriminate another. Or simply react hostile perhaps unfamiliar atmosphere surrounding detention. sum, inherent pressures in-custody exceed questioning before grand compound difficulty identifying reason silence.5 15 Respondent, warnings aware fact said him. offer explanatory There nothing interpretation probably correct. III Our analysis interrogators similar employed supra. investigating corruption Internal Revenue Service answer series questions ground answers might tend witness, Max Halperin, indicted conspiracy defraud States. defense, responded manner consistent innocence. elicited, purposes impeachment, concerning invocation Fifth Amendment subject matter. framed issue Halperin's evidentiary problem appearance justified Amendment, imposed mandate speak, presented valid reasons, other culpability, deferring comment. ruled justify 'statement.' 17 factors relevant determining testimony: repeated assertions jury; nature tribunal initial occurred;6 focus petitioner arrest, making 'natural purpose providing himself.' U.S., 423, S.Ct., 983. 18 Applying here, appears even stronger exclusion Grunewald. First, record reveals claim Second, forum place addition minimal safeguards public arbiters reporter, present Even intimidated setting, least, preferred make hospitable surroundings, attorney, open Third, status defendant' clearer identification arrested suspicion committed offense. 19 nonetheless falsity proffered incentive immediate release opportunity independent corroboration prompted explain away incriminating circumstances. Petitioner here think hasten release. contrary, substantial indication retain custody. knew built seemingly strong evidence—on complainant, flight time, $158. expected merely strength explanation. contacts participation rehabilitation program further diminished likelihood release, irrespective what say. light many explanations silence, do sufficiently in-court thereof. IV 20 Not generally credibility, prejudice. danger And permitting unlikely overcome negative draw from arrest.7 21 before: 'When risk confusion great upset balance advantage, goes out.' Shepard 290 96, 104, 54 22, 26, 78 196 (1933). now 22 hold error permit conclude, exercise our 23 below 24 Judgment 25 BLACKMUN concurs result. 26 Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. 27 escape conclusion something tempest saucer, rightly avoids placing result grounds. dubious aspect renew dictum see ante, 178 6. casually elevated fallacy general terms 'are (remain silent) secret proceedings . ..' To begin with, scintilla empirical data generalization nor accepted validated ordinary human experience. It accurate say, rather guilty, protest their declaring generalized probability other. suggestion people 'in .' confident, assured either place; timid, insecure overwhelmed formality 'open proceedings' station. Moreover, court,' option totally all answered. nonparty less take called. ought wary casual generalizations read 'do wash.' 28 DOUGLAS, 29 agree affirmed, 'I not, like rest my special case. use discredit convict asserts it.' 425, 984, (1957) (concurring opinion). My view controlled accept idea loses force context impeaching Harris New York, 401 222, 91 643, (1971). full effect. 30 believe, Brother WHITE, existence due process violated prosecution calls attention 31 32 am enthusiastic (1966), announced. informed, requires, says him, attorney wishes, seems me comport call insist told do, unfavorable drawn truth testimony. Cf. Johnson 318 189, 196—199, 63 549, 553—554, 87 704 (1943). Surely informed words, Indeed, anyone reasonably affirm ground. Federal effective date transfer jurisdiction D.C.Code offenses Reform Procedure Act 1970, Pub.L. 91—358, 84 Stat. 473. Compare States Semensohn, 421 1206, 1209 (CA2 1970); Brinson, 411 1057, 1060 (CA6 1969); Fowle 410 48 (CA9 Patterson, 475 1066 (CA10), cert. denied, 414 878, 94 64, 38 124 (1973), ex rel. Burt Jersey, 234 (CA3), 938, 243, 165 (1973); Ramirez, 441 950, 954 (CA5), 404 869, 92 91, 113 Immediately following exchange, cautioned improper it. cured instruction, contend harmless. Since raised today, decide survived (1943), Griffin California, 380 609, 85 1229, 106 (1965). 425—426, 984—985, (Black, J., concurring). Kamisar, Kauper's 'Judicial Examination Accused' Forty Years Later—Some Comments Remarkable Article, 73 Mich.L.Rev. 15, 34 (1974). 'Innocent proceedings, without advice counsel cross-examination, judicially supervised procedure provide establishing whole, possibility partial, truth.' 422—423, recognize sent discretion 'But matter grave overtones control.' 423 424,

Category: 0