JOHNSON

v.

HILTON, PRISON SUPERINTENDENT, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …made by someone other than the prosecutor. See United States v. Agu-iar, 610 F. 2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 827, 101 S.Ct. 91, 66 L.Ed.2d 31 (1981); United States v. Kaplan, 576 F. 2d 598, 600 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1078, 99 S.Ct. 858, 59 L.Ed.2d 47 (1979); de Luna v. United States, 308 F. 2d at 141. However, not every statement that under some conceivable interpretation might draw attention to a defendant’s decision not to testify is a comment on silence. “[T]he t…
• United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1983)
  …he due process issue, but rather that the examination should focus on the effect of the cornment upon the jury. United States v. Smith, 635 F. 2d 411, 413 n. 4 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Kaplan, 576 F. 2d 598, 600 (5th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1078, 99 S.Ct. 858, 59 L.Ed.2d 47 (1979). . Comments on a defendant’s silence may constitute plain error, United States v. Henderson, 565 F. 2d 900, 905 (5th Cir.1978). Thus, Shaw’s failure to object on these grounds does not preclude review. . As expl…
• United States v. Chan Walker Zielie, 734 F.2d 1447 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …prosecutor or by counsel for a codefendant. See, United States v. Aguiar, 610 F. 2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 827, 101 S.Ct. 91, 66 L.Ed.2d 31 (1981); United States v. Kaplan, 576 F. 2d 598, 600 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1078, 99 S.Ct. 858, 59 L.Ed.2d 47 (1979). However, not every statement is a comment on silence. The standard for determining if there has been an impermissible comment upon a defendant’s right not to testify at trial is “whether the statement was manife…