Griffin v. California case brief summary
380 U.S. 609 (1965)
CASE FACTS
The Supreme Court reversed a decision of a state supreme court because it found that a comment rule, approved by the state, violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment V. The court found that the comment on the refusal to testify was a remnant of the inquisitorial system of criminal justice that U.S. Constitutional Amendment V outlawed. The state's comment rule was in substance a rule of evidence that allowed the state the privilege of tendering to the jury for its consideration the failure of the accused to testify. No formal offer of proof was made as in other situations, but the prosecutor's comment and the court's acquiescence were the equivalent of an offer of evidence and its acceptance.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the state supreme court was reversed because U.S. Constitutional Amendment Vprohibited comment on petitioner's silence.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
380 U.S. 609 (1965)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner appealed a decision of the
California Supreme Court affirming a judgment convicting petitioner
of murder in the first degree. Petitioner sought consideration of
whether a comment on petitioner's failure to testify during the trial
on the issue of guilt violated the Self-Incrimination
Clause of U.S. Constitutional Amendment V.CASE FACTS
The Supreme Court reversed a decision of a state supreme court because it found that a comment rule, approved by the state, violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment V. The court found that the comment on the refusal to testify was a remnant of the inquisitorial system of criminal justice that U.S. Constitutional Amendment V outlawed. The state's comment rule was in substance a rule of evidence that allowed the state the privilege of tendering to the jury for its consideration the failure of the accused to testify. No formal offer of proof was made as in other situations, but the prosecutor's comment and the court's acquiescence were the equivalent of an offer of evidence and its acceptance.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the state supreme court was reversed because U.S. Constitutional Amendment Vprohibited comment on petitioner's silence.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment