CHANNEL

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (64 total)

• United States v. Orange Jell Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …ime of his arrest, we might entertain doubts as to the propriety of the testimony and comment. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); see also Chapman v. United States, 547 F. 2d 1240, 1247-50 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908, 97 S.Ct. 1705, 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977). Beechum, however, chose to speak. After the inspector had informed him about the test letter and after Beechum had been read his rights, he chose to reply to the inspector’s initial inquiry with the remark that…
• United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …This case, therefore, is not like Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 48 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 [*1074] (1975); Chapman v. United States, 547 F. 2d 1240 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908, 97 S.Ct. 1705, 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977); or United States v. Impson, 531 F. 2d 274 (5th Cir. 1976). In those cases, error was found because “the point upon which a defense was being constructed, [the exculpatory testimony of the defendant], was argu…
• United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1983)
  …this Court has held that mention of the fact of the defendant’s silence following arrest by the prosecutor in his case in chief is a violation of constitutional dimension. See Chapman v. United States, 547 F. 2d 1240, 1245 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908, 97 S.Ct. 1705, 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) (question by prosecutor eliciting remark that the defendant said nothing following arrest constituted error); United States v. Johnson, 558 F. 2d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir.1977) (testimony that the defendant expressed…