Legal Document

450 U.S. 288 101 Supreme Court Reporter 1112 67 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 241 Lonnie Joe CARTER, Petitioner,v.Commonwealth of KENTUCKY. Number 80-5060. Argued Jan. 14, 1981. Decided March 9, Syllabus At petitioner's criminal trial in a Kentucky court which no testimony was introduced on behalf the defense, judge refused requested jury instruction that "[t]he [defendant] is not compelled to testify and fact he does cannot be used as an inference guilt should prejudice him any way." On appeal from conviction, rejected his argument Fifth Fourteenth Amendments require give instruction, holding such would have required "comment upon" failure violation statute prohibiting comment. Held: Petitioner had right under privilege against compulsory self-incrimination Amendment made applicable by Amendment, state having constitutional obligation, upon proper request, minimize danger will evidentiary weight defendant's testify. Pp. 295-305. (a) The penalty imposed defendant for exercise severe when there adverse comment silence, Griffin versus California, 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106, but even without comment, jury, unless instructed otherwise, may well draw inferences silence. Instructions law are perhaps nowhere more important than context self-incrimination. While can prevent jurors speculating about why stands mute face accusation, can, must, if do so, use unique power reduce speculation minimum. 299-303. (b) Kentucky's interest protecting insufficient justification refusing since "[i]t strange indeed conclude this cautionary violates very provision it intended protect." Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 339, 98 1091, 1094, 53 319. determine "from evidence alone" excuse refusal knowing technical meaning "evidence," expected notice testify, and, limiting instructions, speculate incriminating Nor presumes innocent substitute doubtful contributed significantly jury's understanding And defense counsel's own petitioner did take stand could purging effect had. 303-304. Ky., 598 South Western Reporter, 2nd 763, reversed remanded. Kevin Michael McNally, Frankfort, petitioner. Robert V. Bullock, respondent. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 In case request following instruction: "The found error.1 We granted certiorari consider contention defendant, has Constitution. 449 819, 71, 66 21.2 2 * Atlantic 3 early morning December 22, 1978, Officer Deborah Ellison Hopkinsville, Kentucky, Police Department, routine patrol downtown noticed something alley between Young's Hardware Store Edna's Furniture Store. She backed her car up, flashed spotlight down alley, saw two men stooped alongside one buildings. ran off. drove squad hole side radioed Leroy Davis, whom she knew area, informing fled alley. 4 Soon after receiving Ellison's call, Davis run across street near where been patrolling. opposite directions, proceeded them. Following chase, during twice lost sight man pursuing, finally able stop him. later identified petitioner, Carter. During course drop objects: gym bag radio tuned police band. When apprehended, wearing gloves jacket. pursuing inspected building wall. jackets, along with some merchandise apparently removed hardware store. 5 After arresting brought see identify seen noted similar height wore clothing, because too dark get good view men's faces, make positive identification. then taken headquarters. B 6 subsequently indicted third-degree burglary indictment also charged being persistent felony offender, Ky.Rev.Stat. § 532.080 (Supp.1980), basis previous convictions. trial, voir dire examination prospective conducted solely judge.3 prosecutor's opening statement recounted counsel began follows: 7 "Let me tell you little bit how system works. If listened Mr. Ruff [the prosecutor] probably ready put penitentiary. He read bill, true bill issued Grand Jury. Now, Jury group people meet back here room or allowed present before people. only thing hears prosecution's proof & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions say approximately what said you. suppose most issue told just didn't chance hear himself. 8 "Now, completely contrary our law. A man, Judge already you, . until proved guilty ." 9 prosecution rested calling Officers Ellison, another officer, owner held conference, outside hearing whether prosecutor permitted impeach prior Defense stated: 10 "Judge, think possibly reservation Carter might testifying impeachment these offenses aware about. like explain front all means." Counsel explained testified Commonwealth "use several your record [to] propensity truth added experience "a heavy thing; serious, juries seriously indicated "discretionary control" over convictions impeachment, cautioned inviting reversal three convictions, strongly suggesting rely recent only. addressed petitioner: 11 "THE COURT: You sit nothing mentioned don't other shown indicate maybe telling truth. 12 13 [Y]ou talk Rogers [defense counsel] us want do. 15 Lonnie, come private conference lawyer, Rogers[,] decided stand? 16 "LONNIE JOE CARTER: Yes, Sir."4 17 Upon returning open court, advised defense. given jury: 18 19 request. 20 summation stating review "that we were privileged hear," "[c]onsider heard up happened happened. mentioning admissions allegedly at headquarters,5 argued: 21 "Now controverted whatsoever. It Miss here. caught (again pointing blackboard sketch). (pointing reporter's desk) radio) both those jackets belong Joe. least, department. But, rate, go 22 continued reasonable explanation police, "not record."6 23 guilty, recommending sentence years. recidivist phase followed. presented listed indictment. evidence, sentencing maximum term years prison. 24 appeal, Constitution concluding commit error pointed Ky. Rev. Statutes-at-Large 421.225 provides: 25 "In penal shall behalf, so commented create presumption him." 26 Holding cited its decision Green Commonwealth, 488 controlling. II 27 question specifically anticipated reserved, first 615, n. 6, 1233, recently 337, 1093, 55 federal statutory law, resolved unanimous 40 ago Bruno States, 308 287, 60 198, 84 L.Ed. 451. who case.7 Court, addressing "had indefeasible right" proffered statute,8 prohibits creation "substance denied Id., 294,9 S.Ct., 200. 28 came shortly command person "shall witness himself" through Amendment. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 1489, 653.10 Griffin, considered invite unfavorable testify," "does itself warrant guilt" nor "relieve burden proof." But additionally "take into consideration tending State's] indicating among reasonably drawn therefrom probable." U.S., 610, 1230. 29 This set aside Griffin's conviction "the forbids either accused's silence instructions guilt." 1233.11 condemned reminiscent " 'inquisitorial justice, id., 614, 1232, quoting Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 52, 55, 1594, 1596, 678, concluded effected court-imposed unacceptable cuts making assertion costly." 1232.12 30 returned 319, giving "no-inference" objection Despite complaint strategy avoid mention client's no-inference instruction13 judge. contended way draws attention acquiesces, invades rejected. 31 reasoned bar judge's must kind 'comment' entirely different order." 1094. purpose stated, "is remove deliberations influence unspoken inferences," "cannot provide pressure impermissible Griffin." Ibid. 32 observed "two assumptions:" 33 First, not, therefore, their own. Second, totally disregard affirmatively they all. Federal rest speculative assumptions dubious these." 340, 1095 (footnote omitted). 34 Finally, stressed purpose" direct jurors' legal concepts misunderstood, doubt proof," emphasized "in different." 35 inclusion self-incrimination14 36 "reflects many fundamental values noble aspirations: unwillingness subject suspected crime cruel trilemma self-accusation, perjury contempt; fear self-incriminating statements elicited inhumane treatment abuses; sense fair play dictates 'a state-individual balance requiring government ., contest individual shoulder entire load,' .; distrust self-deprecatory statements; realization privilege, while sometimes shelter guilty,' often protection innocent.' supra, 1596.15 37 principles enunciated cases construing backdrops, lead unmistakably conclusion requires "no-adverse-inference" so. 38 Bruno, declared instruct mere "technical erro[r] do[es] affect substantial rights stated "right accused insist on" remain silent "[o]f order importance "mere etiquette trials formalities minutiae procedure." 293-294, Thus, relied authority statute, plain influenced absolute guarantee self-incrimination.16 39 proposition pay price exacted silence; left roam large untutored instincts guide it, broad guilt. Even members silence.17 significance forcefully acknowledged Lakeside, objection. salutary "to deemed outweighed preferred tactics.18 41 repeatedly recognized "instructing basic govern administration justice," 342, 1096, necessary.19 Jurors experts principles; function effectively, justly, accurately Such self-incrimination, "[t]oo many, better advised, wrongdoers. They readily assume invoke Ullman 350 422, 426, 76 497, 500, 100 511. And, "we yet attained certitude human mind justify dogmatic assumption jurors, properly admonished, neither heed 294, 200.20 42 powerful tool disposal protect privilege—the instruction—and affirmative obligation seeks employment. No minimum.21 Contract 43 advanced defendant: 'no inference' behalf." S.W.2d, 341. purported case, 44 argues circumstances election alone," evidence. Commonwealth's unpersuasive. lawyers; know "evidence." 45 arguments explicit lawyer requested. Although innocent," doubted significant Without question, innocence closely aligned. serve functions, derived "significant additional guidance," Taylor 436 478, 484, 1930, 1934, 56 468, See Bain, 596 120 (CA5); English, 409 200, 201 (CA3). certainly, "doesn't [and] doesn't anything" "[A]rguments court." 489, 1936.22 46 "overwhelming explained," committed courts harmless, Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 705. arguable never cf. 293, decline reach issue, Kentucky. Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 527, 99 2450, 2461, 61 39. III 47 freedom "unless chooses speak unfettered will" guaranteed proceedings Fourteenth. 8, 1493. further guarantees privilege. 106. Just "cuts costly," limit makes timely prophylactic given, exacts toll full free Accordingly, hold 48 For reasons judgment reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. 49 ordered. 50 POWELL, concurring. 51 joining write briefly clear that, me, result precedent, require. 52 Fourteenth, provides himself." 106 (1965), proscription violated suggest inferences. hardly claim held, nevertheless, "penalty exercising [this] privilege" tolerated 1232. STEWART's dissenting WHITE joined, responded persuasively departure language Self-Incrimination Clause. wrote: 54 "We 'compelled himself.' Compulsion focus inquiry. Certainly, compulsion detected California procedure, dramatically less palpable nature involved procedures historically gave rise "I stretches concept beyond bounds, whatever exist derives choice counsel. [T]he will, course, realize th[e] quite evident [that chosen testify], though goes unmentioned." 620-621, 1236-1237. usually knows critical facts accused. deeply rooted history share England, Bill Rights included Clause, enables elect contribution factfinding process. Clause logical circumstances. presumed overridden doubt. Chief Traynor judges prosecutors [may] refute extent drawing inferences." Traynor, Devils Due Process Criminal Detection, Detention, Trial, U.Chi.L.Rev. 657, 677 (1966); accord, Schaefer, Interrogation Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Nw.U.L.Rev. 506, 520 (1966). 57 therefore joined Justices dissent Griffin. now based entitled join 58 STEVENS, BRENNAN joins, 59 Court's opinion, add emphasize today's limited convinced specific case—like behalf—should answered State. 343-348, 1096-1099, 319 (1978) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). REHNQUIST, dissenting. reached series steps traceable Yet reverse obviously 62 As points out, (1978). 63 singular paucity reasoning, arising system, requesting charge it. differences, obvious: place, 451 (1939), governed cited: 64 'at otherwise competent witness. him.' law-makers. Congress abstention implied direction traditional duty guiding considerations relevant latter's verdict facts. Concededly correct. Act 16, 1878, it." 292-293, 199-200. 65 Here, attempt Therefore which, entitle arise stand, relevance case. begin provisions Constitution, unsophisticated layman begin, find "[n]o himself Until mysterious process transmogrification "incorporated" 653 (1964), regulated conduct did, claims forced inconsistently rather Malloy, adduced deny author dissented holding, stating: formulation procedural rules justice various matter local concern. general supervisory matters; legitimate violations Constitution's commands." 623, 1237. 68 far state-court jury. decides charge, believe, doing wholly retreats concern." 69 states, ante, 301, testify." Thomistic reasoning carried itself, know. "burdens" "penalties" vague allows proceeding virtually control tried. apt words Harlan, concurring Griffin: 70 "Although concur decision, am express hope eventually return paths recently, followed throughout history." 617, 1234. per curiam memorandum 79-SC-452-MR, May 13, 1980, unreported. court's affirmance reported 763. least five prohibit Others Minnesota, State Sandve, 279 Minn. 229, 232-234, 156 North 230, 233-234, Grey, Minn., 256 74, 77-78 (the necessary manifest injustice); Nevada, Jackson State, Nev. 203, 208, 438 Pacific 795, 798, Nev.Rev.Stat. 175.181 (1979); Oklahoma, Brannin 375 276, 279-280 (Crim.App.); Hanf 560 207, 212 Wyoming, Kinney Wyo. 466, 472, KF135 P2 1040, 1042. few requirement objects. e. g., Conn. Gen. 54-84 (1958). majority judicial pronouncement, honored. See, Woodard 234 Ga. 901, 218 Eastern 629. reading indictment, inquiring possible sources prejudice, venire: simply part starts, said, wheels turning started means that. sits today anyone else courtroom. fully understand Sometimes easy do, out point meets mean prove satisfaction fail guilty. summarized conversation client record, observing advice terms rock hard place. impeached "if jury[,] comment[ed] These alleged admission belonged closing "Ladies Gentlemen sure wondering happened? Why testify? Let behalf. anything." asked him; permit weigh slightest degree enter discussions manner." 292, 199. Mar. ch. 37, 30, Code KF62 3481, states pertinent part: persons defendant] shall, His common defendants furnish themselves, original enactment dispositive alteration common-law rule: "This rule, affording great unfounded deprived explaining [incriminating] To relieve embarrassment passed [H]e act Wilson 149 60, 65-66, 765, 766, 650. suit laws. Dills, Permissibility Comment Defendant's Failure Testify Own Behalf Proceedings, Wash.L.Rev. 161, 164-165 (1928); Wigmore, Evidence 2272, Page 427 (J. McNaughton rev. 1961). Wilson, adversely unanimously was, "[n]othing effective induce them entitled. 66, 766. however, issue. overruled Twining New Jersey, 211 78, 97, Adamson 332 46, 1672, 91 1903, "adhered position accord self-incrimination." Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 412, 86 459, 462, 453. established same standards validity "whether 11, 1495. expressly reserved "on disregarded." 6. retroactive application. "Under laws option circumstance gives determining innocence." 335, 1092. development roots English American revulsion inquisitorial practices Star Chamber High Commission, L. Levy, Origins (1968); E. Cleary, McCormick 114 (2d ed. 1972); 2250 unrelated declining testify: "It every safely venture Excessive timidity, nervousness facing others attempting transactions suspicious character, offences him, confuse embarrass increase prejudices one, however honest, would, willingly placed stand." Other include case), damaging information necessarily tried, reluctance "incriminate [defendants] love fear," 344, 2, 1097 (dissenting opinion). replacing "act" "statute" "Fifth Amendment." 613, done respect : "Congress" replaced Amendment," spirit reflected." 613-614, 1232-1233. Indeed, suggested harm flow lack guidance With reference decisions dissenters "[w]ithout exists unfairly broad." disagreement view. almost universally thought "[T]he fact, unmentioned. [It is] inescapably impressed consciousness." 621, 622, 1237 authority's '[t]he layman's natural suggestion resort each instance confession crime.' 10, 1095, 426 "salutary lay jurors," ordinary citizen guidance" instruction. 1934. "purging" need judged trial." 486, 1935. remaining silent. compelling Taylor, omission [in Taylor's trial] violate guarantee, 492, 1938 J.) obvious weight, lightest work intimation received deference, controlling." Starr 153 626, 919, 923, 841. modern empirical support longstanding assumption, Reed, Simulation: Impact Judge's Attorney Tactics Decisionmaking, 71 J.Crim.L. C. (1980); Bridgeman Marlowe, Applied Psychology Cornish Sealy, Juries Rules Evidence, 1973 Crim.L.Rev. 217-218, 222; Forston, Instructions: Quantitative Analysis Jurors' Listening Comprehension, Today's Speech 4, (1970). underscored national public survey National Center Courts, revealing 37% interviewed believed responsibility innocence. A.B.A.J. 20, supra.

Classification Label: 0