- Doyle v. Ohio (US 1976) (p.198) – interplay of silence as adoption and Miranda rights
- 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?
- 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
- 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
- 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.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Doyle v. Ohio case brief
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...