DOYLE
v.
OHIO; AND WOOD V. OHIO
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 Supreme Court held that prosecutors violated the Fifth Amendment right to silence and Sixth Amendment right to counsel when they questioned defendants about their pre-trial silence and invited juries to draw adverse inferences from defendants' exercise of these constitutional rights. The Court also ruled that prosecutors could not similarly cross-examine defense witnesses about their failure to assert innocence earlier, as doing so would impermissibly penalize the exercise of constitutional protections.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Ct. App. Ohio, Tus-carawas County. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petitions, which read as follows:
“1. Whether an accused who asserts his right of silence and his right to counsel following his arrest properly subjects himself:
“(a) to questions as to why he did not protest his innocence at the point of arrest, at the Preliminary Hearing, or at some time earlier than at the trial;
“(b) to the prosecutor’s argument to the jury that an unfavorable inference could be drawn against the accused as a consequence of his having exercised these constitutional rights ;
“(c) to questions as to why he did not consent to the search of the car (thus necessitating obtaining a search warrant) and to an argument on this point.
“2. Whether a defense witness who was arrested and charged along with the defendant on trial can be properly asked why he did not protest his innocence earlier than at the trial, and can the prosecutor argue this point to the jury?”
Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976)…arose from that Circuit, the Court of Appeals was “not unaware of the widespread rejection” of its position in almost all other Federal Circuits. 513 F. 2d 1257, 1261 (1975). We granted certio-rari to resolve the conflict on this important question. 423 U. S. 823 (1975). We affirm. I This case arises at the pleading stage, and the allegations in petitioner’s complaint are straightforward. Petitioner was hired in 1971 by respondent Howard, the Spokane County treasurer, for clerical work in that office. Two…
-
United States v. Vasquez, 638 F.2d 507 (2d Cir. 1980)…case, it was within the statutory limits. It is thus not subject to review since there is no proof that it was based on improper considerations or incorrect information, see, e. g., United States v. Tramunti, 513 F. 2d 1087 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 823, 96 S.Ct. 54, 46 L.Ed.2d 50 (1975), and does not appear to be “so manifest an abuse of discretion as to violate traditional concepts.” United States v. Holder, 412 F. 2d 212, 214-15 (2d Cir. 1969). Finally, we note that Hernando has not raised, and…
-
Affiliated Cap. Corp. v. City OF Houston, 793 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1986)…tered for the plaintiffs.” The majority opinion correctly quotes this in footnote 10. Despite the reasons given by the majority, I would not overrule that decision. I, therefore, respectfully dissent. . 509 F. 2d 784, 789 (5th Cir). cert. denied, 423 U.S. 823 (1975).…