JOSE EDUARDO HERNANDEZ ROMERO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Trial court comments cautioning jurors not to infer guilt from a defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent are permissible and necessary to prevent improper speculation.
[1] Trial court comments cautioning jurors not to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent are permissible and necessary to prevent j…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Without such cautionary instructions, the jurors would be free to infer or speculate that a defendant who does not testify must surely be guilty, otherwise he would take the stand in his own behalf.”
Court explaining why trial court comments about the right to remain silent are necessary
Jose Eduardo Hernandez Romero appealed a conviction from Miami-Dade County Court. The trial court made comments concerning the defendant's right to re…
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 Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 27, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0086 Lower Tribunal No. A10FJ3P ________________
Jose Eduardo Hernandez Romero, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer Hochstadt Azar, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Liz Feliz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Kendle v. State, 255 So. 3d 400, 412–13 (Fla. 3d DCA
2 2018) (finding that comments made by trial court concerning defendant’s right to remain silent “[fell] within the realm of what [was] permitted, but [were] also necessary. Without such cautionary instructions, the jurors would be free to infer or speculate that a defendant who does not testify must surely be guilty, otherwise he would take the stand in his own behalf.”).