skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 072566     Find in a Library
Title: Fifth Amendment and the Inference of Guilt From Silence Griffin v. California After Fifteen Years
Author(s): D B Ayer
  Journal: Michigan Law Review  Volume:78  Issue:6  Dated:(May 1980)  Pages:841-871
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 31
  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): Right against self incrimination ; Rights of the accused ; US Supreme Court ; Judicial decisions ; Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties
Country: United States of America
Language: English
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.