O’connor v. Ohio

Background

A man convicted of larceny challenged a prosecutor’s comment about his decision not to testify, arguing it violated his constitutional right to remain silent. The Supreme Court previously took the case, vacated the conviction, and sent it back to Ohio after its decision in Griffin v. California, which forbids such prosecutorial comments. On remand, Ohio’s highest court upheld the conviction by a close vote, saying the defendant had failed to object at trial and on initial state appeal, so the state courts would not consider his federal claim.

Reasoning

The Court considered only whether Ohio could use that state rule to block the defendant’s federal claim. The State conceded the prosecutor’s remarks violated the rule announced in Griffin. The Court explained that Griffin applied to convictions that were not yet final when Griffin was decided, and defendants could not be expected to anticipate that change. Because the defendant’s appeals had been exhausted and his conviction was not final when Griffin was handed down, his earlier failure to object could not strip him of the right to challenge the practice after this Court declared it unconstitutional. The Court therefore allowed the defendant’s claim and reversed the Ohio decision.

Real world impact

This ruling lets people whose convictions were not final when Griffin issued raise federal claims about prosecutor comments on silence, even if they did not object earlier in state court. It prevents states from using missed-objection rules to foreclose review of newly announced constitutional protections.