Court Opinion

ID: 9426139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:16:57.594233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:59.267545
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that the judgment below should be affirmed, but “I do not, like the Court, rest my conclusion on the special circumstances of this case. I can think of no special circumstances that would justify use of a constitutional privilege to discredit or convict a person who asserts it.” Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 425 (1957) (concurring opinion). My view of this case is therefore controlled by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). I do not accept the idea that Miranda loses its force in the context of impeaching the testimony of a witness. See Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). In my opinion Miranda should be given full effect.
I also believe, as does my Brother White, that given the existence of Miranda due process is violated when the prosecution calls attention to the silence of the accused at the time of arrest.