UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
AUGUSTIN GOMEZ LUNA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 court held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence violated the rule established in Doyle v. Ohio.
The defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. During closing arguments, the prosecutor highlighted the defendant's si…
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 Impeachment By Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Augustin Gomez Luna was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute approximately 304 pounds of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and he appeals.
In the course of his closing argument, the prosecuting attorney stated,
“Did we ever hear any statements that the defendant made as to this is not my stuff, I’m looking for my friends? You guys have the wrong man, when he was arrested? Think about it.”1
In Doyle v. Ohio, 1976,-U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91, the Supreme Court forbade usage of a defendant’s silence following arrest and Miranda warnings to impeach an explanation subsequently given at the trial. In United States v. Harp, 536 F. 2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976), we applied Doyle to use of silence in an impeaching fashion during the course of the government’s closing argument. Accordingly, Luna’s conviction must be reversed and a new trial held.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. The prosecutor’s comment referred to Luna’s silence after he had been arrested and warned as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1983)
-
Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976)
- United States v. Harp, 536 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976)