Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1965

Griffin v. California

5 Ohio Misc. 127 | 380 U.S. 609

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 established that a State may not use a criminal defendant's decision not to testify as evidence of guilt, because adverse comment penalizes the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

Background

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

Under the California Constitution, a defendant's failure to deny or explain incriminating facts within his knowledge could be commented on by counsel and considered by the jury. The prosecutor repeatedly stressed that Griffin alone could explain what happened to the victim and emphasized that he had not taken the stand. The trial judge likewise instructed the jury that it could consider Griffin's failure to deny or explain evidence within his knowledge as supporting unfavorable inferences, while cautioning that silence did not create a presumption of guilt or lessen the prosecution's burden of proof.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. After the United States Supreme Court held in Malloy v. Hogan that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, it granted review to decide whether California's authorization of adverse comment on a defendant's silence violated that privilege.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, permits a prosecutor or trial judge to invite the jury to treat a criminal defendant's failure to testify as evidence of guilt.

Holding

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

Reasoning

The Court treated California's rule as more than a neutral acknowledgment that a defendant did not testify. By authorizing the prosecutor to argue from silence and the judge to instruct on its evidentiary significance, the State effectively offered the defendant's silence as evidence for the jury's use. The absence of a formal evidentiary offer did not change the practical effect of the procedure.

Adverse comment imposes a penalty for exercising the constitutional privilege not to testify. It makes invocation of the privilege costly: a defendant who remains silent risks having that choice affirmatively presented to the jury as support for the prosecution's case. The privilege against self-incrimination cannot retain its force if courts may punish its exercise in that way.

The Court rejected the argument that the relevant inference is merely natural and unavoidable because jurors will notice a defendant's silence anyway. A jury's possible unaided inference differs materially from an inference the court officially endorses and the prosecutor presses as proof. Judicial approval gives the inference special weight and transforms silence into state-sponsored evidence against the accused.

Moreover, silence has explanations other than guilt. An innocent defendant may be timid, nervous, unable to withstand cross-examination effectively, or concerned that prior convictions will be used to impeach him. Because silence is equivocal, permitting the State to characterize it as incriminating undermines the presumption of innocence and the accusatorial character of the criminal process.

Malloy required the same Fifth Amendment standards in state and federal proceedings. Although a federal statute had long prohibited comment on a federal defendant's failure to testify, the Court held that the constitutional privilege itself—not merely the statute—bars the practice. California's contrary rule was therefore unconstitutional, and Griffin's conviction was reversed.

Concurrences

Justice Harlan

Reasoning

Justice Harlan agreed that Malloy v. Hogan compelled the result. Once Malloy held that the Fifth Amendment applies to the States in all its refinements, he saw no principled basis for allowing state prosecutors or judges to comment adversely on a defendant's silence when federal officials could not do so.

He concurred reluctantly because he disagreed with the Court's broader incorporation approach. In his view, the Fourteenth Amendment should require States to provide procedures fundamental to ordered liberty, rather than impose every federal Bill of Rights rule on them in identical form.

Harlan regarded the no-comment rule as a nonfundamental refinement of the privilege, not an indispensable element of a fair criminal trial. He believed a State could permit carefully regulated comment on silence without abandoning an accusatorial system or producing fundamental unfairness, and he warned that uniform federal rules unnecessarily displaced legitimate state procedural variation.

Dissents

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart, joined by Justice White, argued that the Fifth Amendment prohibits compulsion to testify, not every adverse consequence that may follow from a defendant's voluntary choice to remain silent. The historical privilege responded to coercive practices such as compelled interrogation under threat of punishment; California did not force Griffin to testify and Griffin did not testify.

In Stewart's view, the majority never identified a real form of compulsion created by the California rule. Jurors will inevitably notice that a defendant has not testified, even if no one mentions it. Permitting controlled comment therefore did not create the fact from which an inference might arise; it brought that fact into open discussion.

The California instruction also contained safeguards the majority undervalued. It told jurors not to draw an adverse inference when the defendant lacked knowledge needed to deny the evidence, stated that silence did not create a presumption of guilt or itself establish guilt, and emphasized that the prosecution retained the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel, Stewart added, could explain innocent reasons why a defendant might elect not to testify.

Stewart viewed California's approach as a permissible state effort to address the practical reality of jury deliberations and to promote rational factfinding. Even if other jurisdictions or the Court preferred a different policy, he maintained that the Constitution did not forbid California's choice and that the judgment should have been affirmed.