Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott

Background

A man was tried in Ohio on charges under the Ohio Securities Act. He did not testify at his state trial, and the prosecutor repeatedly called attention to his silence. He was convicted, state appeals were exhausted, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in 1963. After a later decision said the federal Constitution protects against such comment, the man sought federal habeas relief and the Court agreed to decide whether that new rule must be applied to already-final convictions.

Reasoning

The Court framed the question as whether the rule banning comment on a defendant’s silence should be applied to cases whose appeals and opportunities for review were already finished before the rule was announced. The opinion reviewed long-standing prior decisions that had allowed states to permit comment, noted the purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination, and weighed those purposes against the heavy reliance by several states on the older rule. Citing that balance and the Linkletter framework, the Court concluded that the Griffin rule need not be applied to convictions that were final before Griffin was decided. The Court vacated the lower judgment and sent the case back to the appeals court to consider other habeas claims.

Real world impact

The decision leaves in place many convictions rendered under state rules that permitted comment on silence, especially in states that long allowed the practice. The Court identified several states affected and pointed to constitutional amendments and statutes adopted decades earlier. The ruling limits who can win relief based on the no-comment rule and does not create automatic retrials.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented for reasons similar to his earlier Linkletter dissent, arguing for a different retroactivity approach.