United States v. Hale

1975-06-23

Headline: Court bars prosecutors from using a suspect’s silence during police questioning to attack credibility here, finding such evidence more prejudicial than helpful and ordering a new trial for the convicted robbery defendant.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Limits prosecutors’ ability to use a suspect’s silence during custodial questioning to impeach credibility.
Directs trial courts to exclude pretrial silence evidence when prejudice outweighs probative value.
Orders a new trial for the defendant on the ground that the questioning was prejudicial.

Topics: police questioning, right to remain silent, trial evidence and impeachment, Miranda warnings

Summary

Background

Respondent was tried and convicted of robbery in the District of Columbia. After an eyewitness identified him, police arrested him, read him Miranda warnings, and found $158 on his person. At the station an officer asked where he got the money, and he said nothing. At trial he testified that his estranged wife had given him money and offered an alibi. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked why he had not told the police about the alibi; the trial judge told the jury to disregard the questioning but refused to declare a mistrial. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the inquiry impermissibly prejudiced his defense.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a suspect’s silence during custodial questioning can be used to attack his credibility at trial. The Court held that in these circumstances the silence had little probative value because Miranda warnings and the pressures of custody make silence ambiguous. Relying on Grunewald and evidentiary principles, the Court found many alternative explanations for Hale’s silence and concluded the danger of prejudice outweighed any impeachment value. The Court avoided deciding the broader constitutional issue and instead exercised supervisory authority to resolve the evidentiary error.

Real world impact

The ruling requires trial courts to weigh the weak probative value of a defendant’s silence against the strong risk of unfair prejudice when prosecutors seek to use pretrial silence for impeachment. On this record the Court ordered a new trial for Hale. Because the Court did not resolve the larger constitutional question, future cases could reach different or broader legal conclusions.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices concurred in the judgment. Burger criticized reliance on Grunewald. Justices Douglas and White would have grounded the bar on Miranda and due process, while Blackmun simply agreed with the result.