NCJ Number
25287
Journal
Criminal Justice Quarterly Volume: 1 Issue: 2 Dated: (SPRING 1973) Pages: 53-66
Date Published
1973
Length
14 pages
Annotation
THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE ISSUE OF PROSECUTORIAL COMMENT IS DISCUSSED WITH EMPHASIS ON NEW JERSEY LAW, AND THE LIMITATIONS OF RECENT DECISIONS ALLOWING SUCH COMMENT ARE EXPLORED.
Abstract
BY TAKING THE WITNESS STAND, THE DEFENDANT WAIVES HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND SUBJECTS HIMSELF TO CROSS EXAMINATION ON HIS PRIOR INCONSISTENT CONDUCT AND STATEMENTS. IF SUCH TRIAL TESTIMONY IS SEEMINGLY AT VARIANCE WITH A DEFENDANT'S SILENCE AND INACTION AFTER THE CRIME, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO IMPEACH THE DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY BY QUESTIONING HIM ON HIS CONDUCT AND BY COMMENTING IN SUMMATION ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCY. THE HISTORY OF COURT DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE PROPRIETY OF COMMENT ON A DEFENDANT'S SILENCE IS FIRST REVIEWED. CASES WHICH BEAR ON THE SILENCE OF A DEFENDANT AS INCONSISTENT CONDUCT INDICATING CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT AND SILENCE AS BEHAVIOR INCONSISTENT WITH TRIAL TESTIMONY ARE DISCUSSED. SPECIAL ATTENTION IS GIVEN TO STATE V. BURT (NEW JERSEY, 1969), WHICH HELD THAT INCONSISTENT SILENCE MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)