Thursday, September 6, 2012

Doyle v. Ohio case brief

  1. Doyle v. Ohio (US 1976) (p.198) – interplay of silence as adoption and Miranda rights
    1. D and W are convicted of selling marijuana to Bonnell (informant)
      • defense says that D and W weren’t selling drugs, but was buying drugs; has a story about why the money ended up in their car
      • prosecutor argues that W didn’t tell this story previously – if this were true, why didn’t W tell the police that in the first place, why wait until trial?
    2. Δ arg: prosecutor can’t use their silence against them, since they had been told that anything they said could be used against them, in the Miranda warning
      • arg that this is a violation of 5th A and DPC rights – effectively lulled into believing silence was their best protection
      • note: this is post-arrest, post-Miranda
    3. holding: post-arrest, post-Miranda failure to offer an exculpatory explanation in response to official questioning may not be used to impeach when Δ offers an exculpatory explanation at trial
    4. Stevens dissent: impeachment use should be allowed, but not substantive use
      • 5th A protection waived by Δ’s decision to testify – having taken the witness stand, he gives up protection implicit in Miranda warning.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...