NCJ Number
56675
Journal
Marquette Law Review Volume: 62 Issue: 1 Dated: (FALL 1978) Pages: 74-89
Date Published
1978
Length
16 pages
Annotation
THE DECISION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN LAKESIDE V. OREGON (1978) HOLDING THAT JURIES MAY BE INSTRUCTED NOT TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM DEFENDANTS' REFUSAL TO TESTIFY IS COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS DECISIONS.
Abstract
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS DEVELOPED THROUGH CASE LAW A PROCESS FOR BALANCING THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. THE COURT HELD IN GRIFFIN V. CALIFORNIA (1965) THAT A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE JURY WAS ADVISED THAT IT COULD DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM THE DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY. LATER, IN LAKESIDE V. OREGON (1978), THE COURT RELIED ON GRIFFIN TO FIND THAT NO VIOLATION WOULD OCCUR IF THE JURY WAS ADVISED THAT IT SHOULD NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM SUCH A REFUSAL. ALTHOUGH PREVIOUS DECISIONS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MUST BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF EVERY DOUBT, THE JURY MAY STILL BE INCLINED TO TREAT THE DEFENDANT'S SILENCE AS A VIRTUAL ADMISSION OF GUILT. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE IN THE DEFENDANT'S BEST INTEREST IF THE JURY WERE TOLD THAT IT COULD ONLY DRAW REASONABLE INFERENCES FROM DEFENDANT'S SILENCE. HOWEVER, UNDER GRIFFIN, EVEN REASONABLE INFERENCES COULD NOT BE SUGGESTED TO THE JURY IF THEY WOULD BE ADVERSE. ONLY A POSITIVE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT UNDER THE LAKESIDE HOLDING. SUCH POSITIVE STATEMENTS ARE NOT SEEN BY THE COURT AS DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE DEFENDANT'S SILENCE, BUT ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT FROM UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AS TO THEIR REASONS FOR SILENCE. THE COURT'S PROCESS OF BALANCING REMAINS VAGUE AND WITHOUT CLEAR CRITERIA BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, YET IT DOES SERVE THE PRACTICALITIES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK).