Raffel v. United States

Background

A man named Raffel was indicted twice for conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act. At the first trial a government agent testified that Raffel admitted ownership of the drinking place; Raffel did not testify then and the jury failed to reach a verdict. At the second trial the same agent repeated the testimony, Raffel testified denying the admission, and the judge asked why he had not testified at the earlier trial; Raffel answered he did not see enough evidence to contradict the agent and his lawyer said the decision was made on counsel’s advice.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether it was wrong to require Raffel to explain his prior silence once he chose to testify at the second trial. The opinion explained that the Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to testify against themselves, but a person who voluntarily takes the stand gives up that protection and becomes like any other witness. Once a defendant testifies, the government may cross-examine him about matters relevant to his credibility, including conduct inconsistent with his testimony and why he stayed silent earlier. The Court rejected the argument that allowing such questions would unfairly pressure defendants, saying the protection is meant for those who remain silent, not those who choose to speak.

Real world impact

The Court answered the certified question “No”: it was not error to require Raffel to disclose and explain his failure to testify at the first trial. Going forward, judges can permit questions about prior silence when a defendant testifies later, and defendants who choose to testify must generally answer credibility-based questioning fully.