Court Opinion

ID: 9466295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:11:11.341291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:39.102592
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the Court that the essential question is whether the record in this state court murder case creates a serious risk that the defendant was jailed for silence in violation of the fifth amendment. But in its admirable effort to ensure fairness, the Court has found a risk where, in my judgment, no significant risk exists. I read differently the meaning and effect on the jury of the prosecutor’s questions to the defendant on cross-examination.
The murder victim’s stolen car in defendant’s possession at the time of his arrest was a key piece of evidence linking the defendant with the murder. Taken in context, the state prosecutor’s question to the defendant — isn’t it “odd that you” did not “come forward [with your present story about the location of the car] at the time you were arrested” — does not overstep permissible fifth amendment bounds. Defense counsel did not object to the question at the time. From a reading of the transcript of the trial, it is clear to me that the prosecutor was asking about the conflict between the defendant’s story at trial (that he stole the car at the bus station) and his story to the police detective shortly after his arrest (that he stole it at another location). Assuming that the detective truthfully recited the defendant’s story at the time of arrest, as we must in view of the jury’s verdict, the conflict indicated the defendant was lying.
Just before the trial recessed for lunch, the police detective was examined and cross-examined closely about the story about the car the defendant had told after his arrest. The detective’s testimony was still fresh in the jury’s mind immediately after lunch when the defendant took the stand and told a different story about where he got the car. When the time came for the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant, it was natural, indeed necessary, for the prosecutor to ask about the clear conflict in the two stories. After reminding the defendant of his testimony on direct about the location of the stolen car, the prosecutor asked: “Don’t you think it’s rather odd that if it were the truth that you didn’t come forward and tell anybody at the time you were arrested, where you got that car?” This question could have been phrased better because it is unclear. It does not directly allude to the conflict in the story the defendant told at trial and the story he told the detective. The question received an evasive answer, “I wasn’t charged with auto theft, I was charged with murder.” But the prosecutor then tied the question down clearly to the prior inconsistent statement:
Q: This is a rather recent fabrication of yours isn’t it not [sic]?
A: No, it isn’t.
Q: Well, you told detective LeVanseler back when you were first arrested, you stole the car back on Washtenaw and Hill street?
A: Never spoke with Detective LeVan-seler.
*424We are dealing here with impeachment on cross-examination of a hostile witness. On the subject in question, the location of the stolen car, the defendant never stood mute in the face of accusations or claimed his privilege. He never invoked his constitutional privilege to remain silent. In fact, he did not remain silent at all when interrogated after his arrest or at trial. He gave two stories which were graphically inconsistent. There was no silence for him to rely on or for the prosecutor to ask about. Since there was, in fact, no silence at any time concerning the location of the car, I do not think it plausible to say silence, rather than the prior inconsistent statement, is what the prosecutor was asking about.
On the other hand, in Doyle v. Ohio, the main precedent cited by the Court for its position, the defendant made no statement at the time of his arrest but instead, invoking his fifth amendment privilege, remained silent then and also at a later preliminary hearing. Repeatedly on cross-examination, the prosecutor in Doyle asserted a conflict between the defendant’s story at trial and his pretrial invocations of the privilege. Nothing in the majority opinion in Doyle, or in Justice Stevens’ opinion for three members of the Court, suggests that the Court would find any admissibility problem had the defendant instead made an inconsistent statement at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing.
In the heat of cross-examination of a hostile and evasive witness in a criminal trial, questions and answers are often unclear. But the ambiguity of the prosecutor’s initial question was quickly cleared up by the next series of questions which focused on the inconsistency between the defendant’s trial testimony on direct examination and a prior statement given after his arrest.
Molded by the courage of Sir Thomas More, the fifth amendment’s great protection of individual dignity assures the accused that he will not be forced to speak or jailed for silence. Fulfillment of this same high purpose suggests that silence is not required in the face of accusation and law officers are not obliged to disregard the words of the accused when he chooses to explain.