Court Opinion

ID: 9523708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:45:58.185308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:21.899410
License: Public Domain

BABLITCH, J.
(concurring). I disagree with the majority’s holding that a defendant’s pre-Miranda silence may be used to impeach a defendant if the defendant chooses to testify at trial, regardless of when that silence occurred. This holding is objectionable on two grounds.
First, it impermissibly burdens the right against compelled self-incrimination guaranteed by Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution as repeatedly and consistently interpreted by this court. The majority’s stated reasons for doing so fail to adequately justify reducing this right to an empty promise. Furthermore, the rule enunciated by the majority even exceeds the United States Supreme Court’s restric*266tions of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination. Specifically, the majority rule, by encompassing all pr e-Miranda silence within its ambit, necessarily embraces post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence, an area the Supreme Court has not yet addressed.
Second, the majority’s holding impermissibly burdens the right to testify in one’s own defense, a right guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions.
I conclude that the state’s references to Soren-son’s pre-Miranda silence are constitutional error. However, I further conclude that these errors were harmless. Accordingly, I concur in the result.
I. Burdening the Right to Silence
Under the rule announced by the majority today, the right to silence, which this court has repeatedly held attaches at arrest or during police questioning prior to arrest, is diminished nearly to the point of meaninglessness for a defendant who later chooses to testify. It is reduced to near meaninglessness because of the cost involved in asserting the right to silence. Specifically, a defendant’s pr e-Miranda silence may now be used to impeach the defendant at trial if the defendant chooses to testify. In effect, the majority’s holding will compel a potential defendant to speak to authorities, prior to receipt of Miranda warnings, as to facts that could be crucial in a subsequent prosecution, in order to preserve an exculpatory explanation of events at trial. This is in direct contradiction to Art. I, Sec. 8, which guarantees that the exercise of the right to silence will not be used against the one asserting the right. Thus, the rule announced by the majority reduces a right guaranteed under Art. I, Sec. *2678 to a conditional right: a defendant’s right to silence will only be protected if the defendant later chooses not to testify at trial.
The privilege against compelled self-incrimination provides that "[n]o person ... may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself.” Article I, Sec. 8, Wis. Const. This privilege has been interpreted to include the right to remain silent and not have the exercise of the privilege used by the prosecution at trial. State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 236, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982), citing, State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis. 2d 514, 526, 302 N.W.2d 810 (1981).
While the majority recognizes that post- Miranda silence is constitutionally protected at trial under the United States Supreme Court decision of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), under Wisconsin law there is no basis for limiting the protections of the privilege solely to a testifying defendant’s post -Miranda silence. This court has acknowledged that an individual’s privilege against self-incrimination is not contingent upon receipt of Miranda warnings but is a right conferred by the constitution and exists independent of Miranda. Neely v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 304, 317-18, 272 N.W.2d 381 (Ct. App. 1978), aff’d, 97 Wis. 2d 38, 292 N.W.2d 859 (1980); Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 237, n. 10. 'Miranda did not create new rights but, rather, held that the constitutional guarantees already accorded a defendant by the fifth and sixth amendments should be explained to the defendant during a critical stage of the criminal proceeding.” Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 237, n. 10. As recognized in our prior cases, this right attaches during police questioning prior to arrest as well as after arrest and prior to receipt of Miranda *268warnings. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224; Reichhoff v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 375, 251 N.W.2d 470 (1977).
Thus, even though our case law has repeatedly and consistently held that the right against self-incrimination includes the right not to have the silence used by the prosecution at trial, and that the right attaches at arrest or during police questioning prior to arrest, independent of Miranda, nevertheless the majority’s holding substantially curtails this privilege for a defendant who later chooses to testify.
Furthermore, the majority fails to adequately justify this substantial curtailment of a defendant’s Art. I, Sec. 8 rights. For example, the majority states that the protections of the privilege against self-incrimination do not attach to a testifying defendant’s pr e-Miranda silence because there has been no governmental inducement of silence, as occurs when a defendant receives Miranda warnings. State v. Sorenson, No. 86-0124-CR, majority op. at 258. While this is the oft-cited rationale for analyzing a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, see Doyle, 426 U.S. at 610, it is not a proper justification for denying the protections of a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination.
The majority also reasons that to protect a testifying defendant’s pr e-Miranda silence would, "wrongfully manipulate the rules of evidence, and cripple the state’s ability to address all the evidence presented by the defendant at trial.” State v. Sorenson, No. 86-0124-CR, majority op. at 258. Again, our prior cases call into question the validity of this proposition. Specifically, in Reichhoff, we stated that a defendant’s silence may just as well indicate his or her reliance on the right to remain silent as it suggests the inference that the defendant’s trial testimony is a later fabrica*269tion. Reichhoff, 76 Wis. 2d at 383. Thus, given the questionable. probative value of the defendant’s silence, I fail to see how a constitutional bar on the use of a testifying defendant’s pre-trial silence will "cripple” the state’s ability to address the evidence.
Further, the majority’s reliance on the United States Supreme Court’s decision of Raffel v. United-States, 271 U.S. 494 (1926), does not convince me that the subordination of constitutional rights to evidenti-ary concerns is warranted under these circumstances. In Raffel, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment is not violated when a defendant who testifies in a retrial is impeached with his prior silence during the first trial. Id. This decision has been significantly undermined by subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions such as Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 468 n. 37 (1966), and other landmark cases in which the Supreme Court has barred the use of a defendant’s pre-trial silence on fifth amendment grounds.1 See also Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (where the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the government from burdening the right not to incriminate oneself by penalizing silence).
The majority asserts that the denial of a defendant’s Art. I, Sec. 8 protections is compensated by the *270fact that a testifying defendant, who is impeached with his pr e-Miranda silence, has the opportunity to explain such silence on redirect. The majority overlooks the point that an accused has both the right to testify in his own defense, as well as the right to refuse to incriminate himself prior to trial, neither of which should be curtailed absent a compelling justification.
Finally, the majority’s interpretation of the federal and state constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination exceeds the Supreme Court’s own statements on the scope of the privilege. Specifically, in Jenkins, the Supreme Court held, in part, that it was not a violation of the fifth amendment to impeach a testifying defendant with his pre-arrest silence. Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 238. Subsequently, in Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (1982) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that it was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment to impeach a testifying defendant with his post-arrest, pr e-Miranda silence. Thus, the Supreme Court has not yet considered whether the protections of the fifth amendment privilege extend to a defendant’s silence after arrest and prior to Miranda warnings. Yet, under the majority’s holding, any reference to a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is permissible under Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court, when directly faced with the issue of whether the fifth amendment privilege attaches to post-arrest, pr e-Miranda silence, may well decide that the privilege and all its corollaries including the right not to have the silence used in any manner by the prosecution, attach to that silence. We are far better to stay with our well developed, well reasoned case law than to follow what we "think” the *271Supreme Court will do. It might turn out we are following a phantom.
Moreover, should the Supreme Court in the future decide that the fifth amendment privilege does not protect post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence, we are not required to follow them in construing Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and should not do so in light of our previous interpretation of the scope of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. E.g., Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 236; Reichoff, 76 Wis. 2d at 378. As we stated in State v. Doe, 78 Wis. 2d 161, 254 N.W.2d 210 (1977),
"This court has demonstrated that it will not be bound by the minimums which are imposed by the Supreme Court of the United States if it is the judgment of this court that the Constitution of Wisconsin and the laws of this state require that greater protection of citizens’ liberties ought to be afforded.” Id. at 172.
II. Burdening of the Right to Testify.
The majority’s holding also infringes upon a defendant’s constitutional right to testify in his or her own defense by burdening the exercise of this right. Because the prosecution may impeach a defendant with his or her pre-Miranda silence once the defendant chooses to take the stand, the defendant at trial must decide whether to testify, in which event his or her silence will be used by prosecution to impeach, or not testify. The majority has presented the defendant with a Hobson’s choice at trial which perverts the right to testify in one’s own defense guaranteed to all of us by the federal and state constitutions. As the United States Supreme Court has noted in the related *272context of comment on a defendant’s choice not to testify at trial, "[i]t is a penalty imposed by courts for exercising a constitutional privilege. It cuts down on the privilege by making its assertion costly.” Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. at 614.
III. Conclusion
The majority rule takes a fundamental right, the right to silence, and transforms it into a conditional right. Thus, the right not to have silence used at trial exists on the condition that the individual asserting the right does not testify. This consequence of the majority’s rule is made even more egregious by the fact that the condition is unstated and, therefore, known only to the most sophisticated. Most persons when arrested or questioned by the police prior to arrest, will not have the benefit of counsel and, consequently, will be ignorant of the effect of their silence on a subsequent decision to testify at trial. As stated by the dissent in the United States Supreme Court decision of Jenkins,
"This means that a person who thinks he may have done something wrong must immediately decide, most likely without the assistance of counsel, whether, if he is ever charged with an offense and brought to trial, he may wish to take the stand. For if he may later want to take the stand, he had better go to the police station right away to preserve his exculpatory explanation of the events — even though in so doing he must incriminate himself and provide evidence which may be crucial in his eventual conviction. But if he decides not to incriminate himself, he may anticipate that his right to testify in his own defense will be undermined by the argument that his story is *273probably untrue because he did not volunteer it to the police at the earliest opportunity.” Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 253 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the majority errs in holding that references to a testifying defendant’s pr e-Miranda silence do not violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination under Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution. A defendant’s pr e-Miranda silence at arrest or during police questioning prior to arrest, should be constitutionally protected to the same degree as a defendant’s post-Miranda silence when the defendant elects to take the stand. Accordingly, I conclude that any reference to a testifying defendant’s silence at arrest or during police questioning prior to arrest, and prior to receipt of Miranda warnings, is constitutional error. In the present case, however, there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to Sorenson’s conviction; the references to Sorenson’s preMiranda silence were infrequent, and the strength of the state’s evidence against him was substantial. State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE NATHAN HEFFERNAN joins in this concurrence.

While the United States Supreme Court similarly chose to rely on the rationale of Raffel as a justification for permitting a testifying defendant’s impeachment with his or her pre-arrest silence in Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, (1980), this reliance was sharply criticized by both the dissent and concurrence in that opinion. As the dissent stated, "our subsequent cases, without expressly overruling it [Raffel], limited it so severely as to appear to rob it of any continued vitality until its resurrection today .... The logical underpinnings of Raffel were cut away almost completely by Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965).” Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 252 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (1980).