STRAHAN

v.

STRAHAN ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (39 total)

• State v. Bolton, 383 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
  …68). The federal courts have clearly supported the right of the prosecutor to comment on the failure of the defense, as opposed to the defendant, to explain testimony. For example, in United States v. White, 444 F. 2d 1274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 949, 92 S.Ct. 300, 30 L.Ed.2d 266 (1971), the court held: [*928] It has long been the law in federal courts that remarks about the defendant’s failure to testify constitute reversible error. Such statements infringe on the defendant’s presumption of inn…
• Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978)
  …erhaps not in itself reversible error, often has been criticized as confusing. See, e. g., United States v. Muckenstrum, 515 F. 2d 568, 571 (CA5), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1032 (1975); United States v. Christy, 444 F. 2d 448, 450 (CA6), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 949 (1971). And even if the instruction on reasonable doubt had been more clearly stated, the Commonwealth’s argument ignores both the special purpose of a presumption-of-innocence instruction and the particular need for such an instruction in this case…
• United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …. 1978). Furthermore, the statement was not of “such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.” United States v. White, 444 F. 2d 1274, 1278 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 949, 92 S.Ct. 300, 30 L.Ed.2d 266 (1971). It was not a reversible error reference to the defendants’ election not to testify. 9. Miscellaneous Improper Comments Various responses given by witnesses during the trial are challenged as [*391] being so pr…