Griffin v. California

Background

A man was convicted of first-degree murder in a California trial. He did not testify about guilt but did testify at the separate penalty trial. The judge instructed the jury that failure to explain facts within the defendant’s knowledge could be considered, and the prosecutor heavily emphasized the defendant’s silence. The California Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether commenting on silence violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether allowing prosecutors or judges to treat a defendant’s silence as evidence penalizes the exercise of the right not to testify. Justice Douglas’s majority opinion held that such comment or instructions effectively turn silence into evidence and impose a penalty for asserting the constitutional privilege. The opinion explained that this practice is a remnant of an older inquisitorial system and that the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids it. The Court reversed the conviction.

Real world impact

The ruling means prosecutors and judges in state criminal trials may not comment that a defendant’s refusal to testify implies guilt. States that permitted such comments must change courtroom practice, and some convictions relying on such arguments may be affected. The Court did not decide whether a defendant can force an instruction telling juries to ignore silence.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan reluctantly concurred because of prior incorporation decisions. Justice Stewart dissented, arguing California’s rule is not coercive and should be left to states to decide.