GRANT WILSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK MADIGAN AND PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The holding of footnote 37 of Miranda v. Arizona is not retroactive.
The defendant's trial was completed before the Miranda decision. The prosecution used testimony that the defendant remained silent when accused of a c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity Of Supreme Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Footnote 37, at page 468, of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, in part reads as follows:
“In accord with our decision today, it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation. The prosecution may not, therefore, use at trial the fact that he stood mute or claimed his privilege in the face of accusation. Cf. Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 [85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106] (1965); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 8 [84 S.Ct. 1489, 1493, 12 L.Ed.2d 653] (1964); Comment, 31 U.Chi.L.Rev. 556 (1964); Developments in the Law—Confessions, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 935, 1041-1044 (1966). See also Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 562 [18 S.Ct. 183, 194, 42 L.Ed. 568] (1897).”
Wilson’s state trial was completed prior to June 13, 1965, the date of the Miranda decision.
If footnote 37 of Miranda is retroactive, Wilson has a point of some substan-tiality on the use of testimony that he remained silent under a suggestion of an officer of his complicity in the crime for which he was convicted.
We hold that Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 is applicable and that the holding of footnote 37 was not retroactive.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965)
- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1964)
- Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1897)