Griffin v. California

Background

A man was convicted of first-degree murder in California after a jury trial in which he did not testify about guilt. The prosecutor argued to the jury that the accused would have denied or explained the evidence if he could, and the judge instructed the jury that failure to deny or explain evidence could be considered, though it should not create a presumption of guilt. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under a state constitutional provision that permits such comment by court and counsel.

Reasoning

The central question was whether allowing comment or instructions that treat a defendant’s silence as evidence violates the right not to be forced to incriminate oneself (the Fifth Amendment), a right the Court had recently said applies to state trials through the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority concluded that comment or judicial instructions that turn silence into evidence are a remnant of an older, inquisitorial system and impose a penalty for asserting the constitutional privilege, making silence costly. The Court therefore held that prosecutors and judges may not comment that a defendant’s failure to testify shows guilt, and reversed the conviction.

Real world impact

The decision prevents state judges and prosecutors from highlighting a defendant’s silence as proof of guilt, affecting courtroom argument and jury instructions across states that previously allowed such comment. The Court left open whether a defendant can demand a specific instruction telling jurors to disregard silence. California’s rule, as applied here, cannot be used to penalize a defendant for not testifying.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the California practice is noncoercive, useful, and widely supported by professional groups and evidence codes; a separate concurrence accepted the result but warned about federalism concerns in applying federal standards to states.