Court Opinion

ID: 9756760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:51:21.326725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:29.253594
License: Public Domain

DANIEL E. SCOTT, Judge,
concurring.
I agree that Robinson’s privilege against self-incrimination, unless otherwise waived, continued during the appeal of his conviction, and that testifying in his own case did not necessarily waive his privilege in this case. See Martin v. Flanagan, 259 Conn. 487, 789 A.2d 979, 984-86 & n. 4-7 (2002) (collecting various federal, state, and secondary authorities).
Yet Robinson testified not only at his own trial and a pre-trial deposition, but also in the first (hung jury) trial of this case. That the privilege is not waived or affected by testifying in an earlier trial of the same case is supported by much thinner authority; apparently a few isolated cases and perhaps dicta at that. In the absence of controlling Missouri authority, I would not be inclined to so hold as any type of general proposition. However, I cannot say the trial court abused its discretion, since there is some case authority *131for its ruling, nor can I discern prejudice in any event. Accordingly, I concur.