Greer v. Miller

1987-09-21

Headline: Court narrows rule on post-arrest silence, rules a single prosecutor question did not require reversing the conviction, allowing the murder verdict to stand after prompt curative instructions.

Holding: The Court held that a prosecutor's single question about a defendant's postarrest silence, immediately objected to and struck with curative instructions, did not require reversing the conviction.

Real World Impact:

Allows convictions to stand when brief improper questions are immediately cured by the judge.
Gives trial judges’ curative instructions more weight in preserving verdicts.
Makes habeas relief less likely for isolated post-arrest silence comments.

Topics: right to remain silent, trial questioning of defendants, prosecutorial conduct, appeals and habeas review

Summary

Background

A man was tried and convicted for kidnapping, robbery, and murder after an accomplice agreed to testify for the State. The defendant took the stand and gave a different account. On cross-examination one brief question asked why he had not told that story when arrested. Counsel immediately objected, the judge sustained the objection, and the jury was told to ignore the question; the defendant was convicted and sentenced to long terms.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether that single question required reversal under Doyle v. Ohio, which bars using a suspect’s silence after receiving Miranda warnings to impeach trial testimony. The majority concluded Doyle forbids using post-arrest silence for impeachment only where the silence is actually presented to the jury as evidence. Here the judge promptly sustained the objection, gave curative instructions, and the prosecutor did not pursue the matter further. The Court also noted the State and Illinois courts had applied the harmless-error standard and found the properly admitted evidence sufficient to support the verdict, so no due-process violation required reversal.

Real world impact

The decision makes trial judges’ immediate rulings and curative instructions central when a prosecutor asks an improper question about post-arrest silence. Brief, objected-to questions that are struck and followed by instructions are less likely to overturn convictions, especially on collateral (habeas) review. Defense counsel’s actions at trial remain important if more specific curative steps are desired.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens agreed with the result here but would treat Doyle errors differently on direct appeal. Justice Brennan (joined by two others) dissented, arguing a single comment can violate Doyle and that the conviction should be reversed.