Doyle v. Ohio
- Decided
- June 17, 1976
- Docket
- 75-5014
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,773 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that use of post-Miranda silence for impeachment purposes violates Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment — State v. Harmon (1998)
- holding that use of post- Miranda silence for impeachment purposes violates Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment — State v. Harmon (1998)
- concluding that the use of a defendant’s post-Miranda silence to impeach that defendant’s 26 exculpatory testimony violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — McBride v. Superintendent, Sci Houtzdale (2012)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*611] Me. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in these consolidated cases is whether a state prosecutor may seek to impeach a defendant’s exculpatory story, told for the first time at trial, by cross-examining the defendant about his failure to have told the story after receiving Miranda warnings[1] at the time of his arrest. We conclude that use of the defendant’s post-arrest silence in this manner violates due process, and therefore reverse the convictions of both petitioners.
I
Cite this
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.