skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 72566 Find in a Library
Title: Fifth Amendment and the Inference of Guilt From Silence Griffin v. California After Fifteen Years
Journal: Michigan Law Review  Volume:78  Issue:6  Dated:(May 1980)  Pages:841-871
Author(s): D B Ayer
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 31
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Focusing on the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, this article points out the inefficiency of the rule regarding self-incrimination estabished in the Supreme Court's decision in Griffin v. California (1965).
Abstract: At the peak of its enthusiasm to expand the constitutional protections of criminal defendants, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of alleged murderer Eddie Dean Griffin because he had failed to take the stand in his own defense. Specifically, the Court held that the judge's and prosecutor's unfavorable remarks to the jury regarding the defendant, possibly drawn from his failure to testify, were unconstitutional. As a result, the Griffin rule has seriously restricted State flexibility in trial procedure and has impaired the effective operation of the criminal justice system. The rule is overinclusive in supporting virtually authomatic reversal when remarks explicitly focus on the defendant's silence and the inference of guilt drawn from it. At the same time, the rule is underinclusive in its complete failure to address the much more common situation in which no comment is made by judge or prosecutor but the jury nonetheless concludes that the defendant is guilty because he has nothing to offer in his own defense. Nothing in the fifth amendment specifically addresses the problem of commenting upon a defendant's failure to testify at trial. Therefore, while Griffin may seem superficially consistent with fairness principles embodied in that amendement, it cannot be justified as a means to prevent fifth amendment, it cannot be justified as a means to prevent fifth amendment violations. It continues to exist as a rule without reasoned justification. Footnotes are included.
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Judicial decisions; Right against self incrimination; Rights of the accused; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=72566

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.