Griffin v. California
- Decided
- April 28, 1965
- Docket
- No. 202
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,680 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that prosecutorial comment on a defendant’s failure to take the stand is an unconstitutional burden on his right not to testify — State v. Santiago (1971)
- holding that a prosecutor’s comment on the defendant’s failure to testify violates the Fifth Amendment — Robert TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee (1995)
- holding that a prosecutor’s direct reference to a criminal defendant’s failure to testify is a violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination — Charles L. Lorraine v. Ralph Coyle, Warden (2002)
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
Douglas, J.
Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree after a jury trial in the California court. He did not testify at the trial on the issue of guilt, though he did testify at the separate trial[1] on the issue of penalty. The trial court instructed the jury on the issue of guilt, stating that a defend [*128] ant has a constitutional right not to testify. But it told the jury:[2]
“As to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge, if he does not testify, he fails to deny or explain such evidence, the jury may take that failure into consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as indicating that among the inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom those unfavorable to the defendant are the more probable.”
Statutes cited
Cite this
Griffin v. California, 5 Ohio Misc. 127 (1965)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.