Griffin v. California
380 U.S. 609 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids a prosecutor from commenting on a criminal defendant's failure to testify and a trial court from instructing the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.
Facts:
- Petitioner Griffin was seen with Essie Mae on the evening of her death.
- Evidence placed Griffin with Essie Mae in the alley where her body was subsequently discovered.
- At his trial for murder, Griffin exercised his constitutional right and chose not to testify on the issue of his guilt or innocence.
- During closing arguments, the prosecutor emphasized Griffin's failure to take the stand to deny or explain the evidence against him.
Procedural Posture:
- Griffin was charged with first-degree murder and tried before a jury in a California state trial court.
- The prosecutor commented on Griffin's failure to testify, and the trial court instructed the jury that it could draw adverse inferences from his silence, consistent with the California Constitution.
- The jury convicted Griffin, and he was sentenced to death.
- Griffin appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of California, which served as the state's highest appellate court.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Griffin's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, as applied to the states, prohibit prosecutors from commenting on a defendant's refusal to testify and trial courts from instructing jurors that they may infer guilt from such silence?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. Comment by the prosecution or instruction by the court on an accused's silence violates the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. Such commentary is a penalty imposed for exercising a constitutional privilege, making the assertion of the right costly. It is a remnant of the inquisitorial system of criminal justice that the Fifth Amendment was designed to outlaw. While a jury might naturally draw its own inferences from silence, it is a different matter when the court solemnizes that silence into evidence against the accused. Following Malloy v. Hogan, which applied the Self-Incrimination Clause to the states, the same standards must apply in both state and federal proceedings, forbidding such comments and instructions.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. The California rule allowing comment on a defendant's silence does not violate the Fifth Amendment because it does not 'compel' the defendant to be a witness against himself. The historical context of the Fifth Amendment involved direct coercion, such as torture, which is vastly different from the indirect pressure at issue here. The jury will inevitably notice the defendant's silence regardless of any comment, and a carefully worded instruction can guide their inferences rationally and may even protect the defendant from the jury's untutored and potentially unfair assumptions. The California procedure is a reasonable attempt to balance the defendant's rights with the state's interest in ascertaining the truth, and it does not cross the line into unconstitutional compulsion.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. While disagreeing with the underlying legal doctrine, precedent compels this result. The Court's recent decision in Malloy v. Hogan held that the Fifth Amendment applies to the states in all its refinements. Since it is established that such commentary is forbidden in federal trials, there is no logical escape from applying the same 'no-comment' rule to the states. However, this decision exemplifies the damaging effect of the 'incorporation' doctrine, which overrides state procedural rules that are not fundamentally unfair and improperly infects the operation of the federal system.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established a uniform 'no-comment' rule for all criminal trials in the United States, invalidating contrary practices in states like California and Ohio. By incorporating this aspect of the Fifth Amendment against the states, the Court solidified the right to silence as a core protection for criminal defendants nationwide. The ruling reinforces the accusatorial nature of the American justice system, where the state must prove guilt without any compelled assistance, direct or indirect, from the accused.
