Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1965

Griffin v. California

380 U.S. 609 | 85 S. Ct. 1229 | 14 L. Ed. 2d 106 | 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1346

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that the Fifth Amendment bars prosecutors and judges from using a criminal defendant's silence at trial as evidence of guilt.

Background

Griffin was convicted of first-degree murder in a California jury trial and sentenced to death. He did not testify during the guilt phase, although he did testify during the separate penalty proceeding. The evidence placed him with the victim on the night of her death and in the alley where her body was found.

California law permitted both the judge and prosecutor to comment on a defendant's failure to deny or explain evidence within the defendant's knowledge. The trial judge instructed the jury that it could treat Griffin's failure to testify or explain such evidence as supporting unfavorable inferences, while also cautioning that silence did not create a presumption of guilt and did not lessen the prosecution's burden of proof. The prosecutor repeatedly stressed that Griffin, unlike the deceased victim, could have explained what happened but had not done so.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. After the Supreme Court held in Malloy v. Hogan that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court granted review to decide whether California's comment rule violated that privilege.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, permits a prosecutor to comment on a criminal defendant's failure to testify and permits a court to instruct the jury that the silence may support an inference of guilt.

Holding

No. The Fifth Amendment forbids both prosecutorial comment on an accused's silence and judicial instructions that treat the silence as evidence of guilt.

Reasoning

In a federal prosecution, adverse comment on a defendant's failure to testify would have been reversible error under federal statute and precedent. Although those federal decisions rested on statute rather than directly on the Fifth Amendment, the Court treated the statutory rule as reflecting the constitutional protection that a defendant may rely on the presumption of innocence without becoming a witness.

California's practice effectively placed the defendant's silence before the jury as evidence for the State. The prosecutor's argument and the court's approval of it were functionally equivalent to offering evidence and having it admitted. That use of silence conflicts with the Fifth Amendment's rejection of inquisitorial methods of criminal justice.

Adverse comment imposes a penalty for exercising the privilege against self-incrimination. A defendant who remains silent must risk having that choice used to suggest guilt, making the constitutional privilege costly and thereby diminishing its protection.

The Court rejected the argument that a jury would naturally infer guilt from silence even without comment. A jury's unassisted inference is different from an inference affirmatively encouraged and endorsed by the prosecutor and trial judge. Moreover, silence can have innocent explanations, including fear that testifying will expose prior convictions or otherwise prejudice the jury.

Malloy required the same Fifth Amendment standards in state and federal criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held that neither a prosecutor nor a judge may invite the jury to treat a defendant's decision not to testify as evidence of guilt. The conviction was reversed.

Concurrences

Justice Harlan

Reasoning

Justice Harlan concurred because Malloy v. Hogan had held that the Fifth Amendment applies to the States in all its refinements. Given that premise, he saw no principled way to allow California to do what federal prosecutors and judges could not do.

He wrote reluctantly, however, because he disagreed with the Court's incorporation approach. In his view, the Fourteenth Amendment should require States to provide only those procedural protections that are fundamental to due process, rather than every detail of the federal Bill of Rights.

Harlan regarded the accusatorial system as fundamental, but believed the particular no-comment rule was not indispensable to a fair criminal process; as Justice Stewart's dissent showed, justice could still be done without it. He criticized incorporation for overriding state procedural choices and reducing the distinct roles of state and federal governments.

Dissents

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart, joined by Justice White, argued that California had not compelled Griffin to be a witness against himself. The Fifth Amendment's central concern is compulsion, and the historic abuses behind the privilege involved direct coercion to answer questions under threats of punishment. California did not force Griffin to testify; it allowed the jury to consider his decision not to do so.

In Stewart's view, the Court did not identify a meaningful additional penalty created by comment. Jurors inevitably notice when a defendant does not take the stand. California's instruction, rather than coercing testimony, attempted to guide jurors' unavoidable reasoning by limiting them to facts the defendant could reasonably be expected to explain and by reiterating that silence neither created a presumption of guilt nor relieved the State of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stewart also maintained that California's procedure allowed rational discussion of silence while giving defense counsel an opportunity to offer innocent explanations for the defendant's choice not to testify. He noted that the approach had support in evidence codes, professional organizations, and scholarly commentary, even if other States chose to prohibit comment.

Because the Due Process Clause had not independently been shown to forbid California's rule, Stewart believed the choice of criminal-trial procedure belonged to the State. The Court, he concluded, had converted a disputed matter of state policy into a constitutional prohibition and should have affirmed the conviction.