RESEARCH STARTER

Griffin v. California

Griffin v. California is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the rights of defendants in criminal trials, particularly concerning their decision to remain silent. The ruling, decided in a 7-2 vote, established that a prosecutor or judge's negative commentary on a defendant's choice not to testify can undermine the principle of presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized that the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision overruled a previous case, Adamson v. California, reinforcing that even the mere mention of a defendant's silence in court constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on their rights. The opinion was authored by Justice William O. Douglas, with notable dissents from Justices Potter Stewart and Byron R. White. This case highlights the importance of safeguarding defendants' rights and the potential impact of judicial and prosecutorial conduct on jury perceptions. It serves as a pivotal reference point in discussions about due process and the legal protections afforded to individuals accused of crimes.

Full Article

DATE: April 28, 1965

CITATION: 380 U.S. 609

ISSUE: Immunity against self-incrimination

SIGNIFICANCE: The Supreme Court held that prosecutors or judges cannot make negative comments about a defendant’s invoking the Fifth Amendment and that this protection against self-incrimination applies to the states under the due process clause.

No one can stop a juror from drawing an inference regarding guilt or innocence from a defendant’s declining to take the stand in his or her own defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a negative comment regarding the defendant’s decision to remain silent, when made by the prosecutor or judge in front of the jury, tends to make the jurors disregard the defendant’s presumption of innocence. The Court, in a 7-2 decision that overruled Adamson v. California (1947), declared that the right against self-incrimination was a fundamental right protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that even a mention of the defendant’s refusal to testify in a criminal case was an unconstitutional deprivation of the defendant’s rights. William O. Douglas wrote the opinion for the Court, with Potter Stewart and Byron R. White dissenting.



Full Article

DATE: April 28, 1965

CITATION: 380 U.S. 609

ISSUE: Immunity against self-incrimination

SIGNIFICANCE: The Supreme Court held that prosecutors or judges cannot make negative comments about a defendant’s invoking the Fifth Amendment and that this protection against self-incrimination applies to the states under the due process clause.

No one can stop a juror from drawing an inference regarding guilt or innocence from a defendant’s declining to take the stand in his or her own defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a negative comment regarding the defendant’s decision to remain silent, when made by the prosecutor or judge in front of the jury, tends to make the jurors disregard the defendant’s presumption of innocence. The Court, in a 7-2 decision that overruled Adamson v. California (1947), declared that the right against self-incrimination was a fundamental right protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that even a mention of the defendant’s refusal to testify in a criminal case was an unconstitutional deprivation of the defendant’s rights. William O. Douglas wrote the opinion for the Court, with Potter Stewart and Byron R. White dissenting.



More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (3)

Related Articles (3)