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.