United States v. Robinson
108 S. Ct. 864, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 942, 485 U.S. 25 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination does not prohibit a prosecutor from commenting on a defendant's failure to testify when that comment is a fair response to an argument made by the defendant or their counsel.
Facts:
- In 1979, Robert Robinson leased a truck stop in Guthrie, Kentucky, but the business deteriorated over several months.
- Robinson increased the insurance coverage on the truck stop, and two days later, an explosion and fire destroyed the premises.
- Robinson subsequently filed an insurance claim for $80,000 for the truck stop.
- Approximately one year later, Robinson's home in Clarksville, Tennessee, was badly damaged by arson about an hour after Robinson departed for California with a truck filled with household furnishings.
- When interviewed by investigators, Robinson denied setting fire to his house and explained he had removed furnishings to take them to his daughter in California.
- Robinson filed a $200,000 insurance claim for his home, including a $106,500 personal property claim, but authorities later discovered some of the claimed property in his California home.
- Robinson did not testify at his trial for mail fraud related to these incidents.
- During closing arguments, Robinson's counsel repeatedly suggested that the Government had unfairly denied Robinson the opportunity to explain his actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Robinson was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee of two counts of mail fraud.
- During closing arguments, Robinson's counsel argued that the Government had not allowed Robinson to explain his side of the story.
- The prosecutor, in rebuttal, stated that Robinson "could have taken the stand and explained it to you."
- Robinson's counsel did not object to the prosecutor's comment, though the trial court later instructed the jury not to draw any inference from the defendant's election not to testify.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed Robinson's convictions, finding the prosecutor's comment violated the Fifth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3481.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari, vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of United States v. Young (470 U.S. 1 (1985)).
- On remand, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit reinstated its prior judgment.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari again to consider the issue.
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 a prosecutor's statement during closing argument that the defendant "could have taken the stand and explained it to you" violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, when the statement is made in response to defense counsel's argument that the government denied the defendant an opportunity to explain their actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, a prosecutor's statement that a defendant "could have taken the stand and explained it to you" does not infringe upon the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights when it is a fair response to comments made by defense counsel. The Court reasoned that Griffin v. California, which forbids prosecutorial comment on an accused's silence, should not be read so broadly as to preclude a fair response by the prosecutor. Griffin prohibits treating a defendant's silence as substantive evidence of guilt or asking the jury to draw an adverse inference from it. Here, the prosecutor's comment was not an independent suggestion of guilt but rather a reference to the defendant's opportunity to testify as one of several opportunities afforded, contrary to defense counsel's assertion that the Government had prevented Robinson from explaining his side of the case. The Court emphasized that comments must be examined in context and that both the defendant and the prosecutor should have the opportunity to meet fairly the evidence and arguments of one another.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the prosecutor's comment violated Robinson’s Fifth Amendment rights and the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3481, because Griffin v. California and Wilson v. United States establish clear, categorical prohibitions against any prosecutorial comment on a defendant's failure to testify. Justice Marshall argued that Griffin's language explicitly forbids "either comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt," without making an exception for responsive comments. He asserted that the Wilson rule is even more categorical, demanding the exclusion of "all reference" to a defendant's failure to testify. The dissent contended that the majority's distinction between comments that invite an inference of guilt and other comments is not found in Griffin and that the underlying principle of Griffin is to prevent placing a cost on the exercise of the constitutional privilege to remain silent. Furthermore, Justice Marshall believed that the Court was confusing whether a constitutional error occurred with whether it was harmless or plain error, and that the context should be considered for the latter, not to negate the error itself.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Blackmun
The prosecutor's comments did constitute error under Griffin v. California, and the considerations the majority used to find no error should have been weighed in assessing whether the error qualified as plain error. Justice Blackmun agreed with the dissent that the prosecutor's remarks were Griffin error and that the majority's analysis improperly conflated the question of whether an error occurred with the question of whether it was harmless or plain error. He specifically addressed the application of the plain-error doctrine, noting potential confusion arising from United States v. Young (1985). He suggested the Court of Appeals might have improperly "double counted" the constitutional nature of the error in its plain-error analysis, applying a standard of prejudice usually reserved for properly preserved constitutional errors. Justice Blackmun advocated for the Supreme Court to clarify the plain-error standard to guide lower courts more effectively, and would have remanded the case for that clarification.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the Griffin rule, establishing a "fair response" exception to the general prohibition against prosecutorial comments on a defendant's failure to testify. By allowing prosecutors to respond to defense arguments that imply governmental unfairness in denying the defendant an opportunity to explain, the Court aimed to balance the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights with the prosecution's right to a fair rebuttal. This ruling moves away from a strict, categorical ban and introduces a contextual analysis for such comments, likely leading to more nuanced litigation in future cases regarding the line between a "fair response" and an impermissible suggestion of guilt from silence. It underscores that the Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimony, not against a prosecutor's rebuttal to a defense-initiated challenge.
