BRADY

v.

OHIO; FERGUSON V. GEORGIA; EVANS V. KATZENBACH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.; ALLEN V. HOFFIUS ET AL.; SANTOS V. CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Helton v. State, 424 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …’s constitutional protection against self-incrimination, thereby requiring a new trial. Comment upon the defendant’s failure to testify is of course improper. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), reh. denied 381 U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730. However, prosecutorial comment upon a general lack of defense evidence is permissible. See Smiley v. State, 395 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); also see Crook v. State, 391 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We find that…
• Walker v. State, 701 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
  …cision not to testify is basic. Every criminal lawyer understands that prosecutorial comments on the defendant’s exercise of the right to remain silent are barred. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, reh’g denied, 381 U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730 (1965); Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17, 98 So. 613 (1924). This prohibition is, of course, founded on the provisions against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as…
• Elam v. State, 389 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …ed. Appellant objected and moved for a mistrial, which was denied. He contends that this argument was an impermissible comment on his right to remain silent, citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. [*222] 1229,14 L.Ed.2d 106, reh. den. 381 U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730 (1965), and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065, reh. den. 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1283, 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967). We disagree and affirm. The remarks by the prosecutor were…