jenkins
anderson
argued
january
decided
june
trial
michigan
state
murder
petitioner
testified
acted
prosecutor
questioned
petitioner
fact
apprehended
surrendered
governmental
authorities
two
weeks
killing
closing
argument
referred
petitioner
silence
thereby
attempting
impeach
petitioner
credibility
suggesting
spoken
killed
petitioner
convicted
manslaughter
conviction
affirmed
state
courts
sought
habeas
corpus
relief
federal
district
contending
constitutional
rights
violated
prosecutor
questioned
concerning
prearrest
silence
district
denied
relief
appeals
affirmed
held
fifth
amendment
applied
fourteenth
amendment
violated
use
prearrest
silence
impeach
criminal
defendant
credibility
fifth
amendment
prevents
prosecution
commenting
silence
defendant
asserts
right
remain
silent
criminal
trial
violated
defendant
testifies
defense
impeached
prior
silence
impeachment
follows
defendant
decision
cast
aside
cloak
silence
advances
truthfinding
function
criminal
trial
cf
raffel
harris
new
york
brown
pp
use
prearrest
silence
impeach
defendant
credibility
deny
fundamental
fairness
guaranteed
fourteenth
amendment
common
law
traditionally
allowed
witnesses
impeached
previous
failure
state
fact
circumstances
fact
naturally
asserted
jurisdiction
may
formulate
rules
evidence
determine
prior
silence
inconsistent
present
statements
impeachment
reference
silence
probative
case
governmental
action
induced
petitioner
remain
silent
arrest
doyle
ohio
inapplicable
pp
state
required
allow
impeachment
use
prearrest
silence
jurisdiction
free
formulate
evidentiary
rules
defining
situations
silence
viewed
probative
prejudicial
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
burger
white
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
part
ii
stewart
joined
stewart
filed
statement
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
post
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
part
stewart
joined
post
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
joined
post
carl
ziemba
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioner
robert
derengoski
solicitor
general
michigan
argued
cause
respondent
brief
frank
kelley
attorney
general
thomas
casey
assistant
attorney
general
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
question
case
whether
use
prearrest
silence
impeach
defendant
credibility
violates
either
fifth
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
august
petitioner
stabbed
killed
doyle
redding
petitioner
apprehended
turned
governmental
authorities
two
weeks
later
state
trial
murder
petitioner
contended
killing
petitioner
testified
sister
boyfriend
robbed
redding
another
man
evening
august
petitioner
nearby
robbery
occurred
followed
thieves
short
distance
reported
whereabouts
police
according
petitioner
testimony
next
day
encountered
redding
accused
informing
police
robbery
petitioner
stated
redding
attacked
knife
two
men
struggled
briefly
petitioner
broke
away
petitioner
admitted
struggle
tried
push
knife
redding
far
app
maintained
acted
solely
prosecutor
questioned
petitioner
actions
stabbing
suppose
waited
police
tell
happened
see
long
day
arrested
taken
custody
first
time
reported
things
told
us
today
anybody
two
days
happened
report
probation
officer
well
apart
one
one
interposing
ever
go
police
officer
anyone
else
matter
fact
two
weeks
later
yes
petitioner
convicted
manslaughter
sentenced
years
imprisonment
state
prison
michigan
appeals
affirmed
conviction
michigan
denied
leave
appeal
petitioner
sought
writ
habeas
corpus
federal
district
eastern
district
michigan
contending
constitutional
rights
violated
prosecutor
questioned
concerning
prearrest
silence
federal
magistrate
concluded
petition
habeas
corpus
relief
denied
district
adopted
magistrate
recommendation
appeals
sixth
circuit
affirmed
granted
writ
certiorari
affirm
ii
trial
prosecutor
attempted
impeach
petitioner
credibility
suggesting
petitioner
spoken
killed
petitioner
contends
prosecutor
actions
violated
fifth
amendment
applied
fourteenth
amendment
fifth
amendment
guarantees
accused
right
remain
silent
criminal
trial
prevents
prosecution
commenting
silence
defendant
asserts
right
griffin
california
case
course
petitioner
remain
silent
throughout
criminal
proceedings
instead
voluntarily
took
witness
stand
defense
decision
raffel
recognized
fifth
amendment
violated
defendant
testifies
defense
impeached
prior
silence
defendant
raffel
tried
twice
first
trial
government
agent
testified
raffel
earlier
made
inculpatory
statement
defendant
testify
first
trial
ended
deadlock
agent
repeated
testimony
second
trial
raffel
took
stand
deny
making
statement
revealed
raffel
testified
first
trial
held
inquiry
prior
silence
proper
immunity
giving
testimony
one
defendant
may
waive
offering
witness
takes
stand
behalf
witness
within
limits
appropriate
rules
may
thus
raffel
concluded
defendant
subject
impeaching
credibility
like
witness
grunewald
argued
person
facing
arrest
remain
silent
failure
speak
later
used
impeach
constitution
forbid
every
choice
criminal
process
effect
discouraging
exercise
constitutional
rights
chaffin
stynchcombe
see
corbitt
new
jersey
threshold
question
whether
compelling
election
impairs
appreciable
extent
policies
behind
rights
involved
chaffin
stynchcombe
supra
quoting
crampton
ohio
decided
mcgautha
california
raffel
explicitly
rejected
contention
possibility
impeachment
prior
silence
impermissible
burden
upon
exercise
fifth
amendment
rights
unable
see
rule
accused
testifies
must
testify
fully
adds
substantial
manner
inescapable
embarrassment
accused
must
experience
determining
whether
shall
testify
similarly
defined
scope
fifth
amendment
protection
harris
new
york
held
statement
taken
violation
miranda
arizona
may
used
impeach
defendant
credibility
rejecting
contention
impeachment
violates
fifth
amendment
said
every
criminal
defendant
privileged
testify
defense
refuse
privilege
construed
include
right
commit
perjury
voluntarily
taken
stand
petitioner
obligation
speak
truthfully
accurately
prosecution
utilize
traditional
devices
adversary
process
determining
whether
constitutional
right
burdened
impermissibly
also
appropriate
consider
legitimacy
challenged
governmental
practice
see
chaffin
stynchcombe
supra
attempted
impeachment
defendant
practice
issue
may
enhance
reliability
criminal
process
use
impeachment
allows
prosecutors
test
credibility
witnesses
asking
explain
prior
inconsistent
statements
acts
defendant
may
decide
take
witness
stand
risk
choice
litigation
tactics
defendant
decides
testify
interests
party
regard
function
courts
justice
ascertain
truth
become
relevant
prevail
balance
considerations
determining
scope
limits
privilege
brown
thus
impeachment
follows
defendant
decision
cast
aside
cloak
silence
advances
function
criminal
trial
conclude
fifth
amendment
violated
use
prearrest
silence
impeach
criminal
defendant
credibility
iii
petitioner
also
contends
use
prearrest
silence
impeach
credibility
denied
fundamental
fairness
guaranteed
fourteenth
amendment
agree
common
law
traditionally
allowed
witnesses
impeached
previous
failure
state
fact
circumstances
fact
naturally
asserted
wigmore
evidence
chadbourn
rev
jurisdiction
may
formulate
rules
evidence
determine
prior
silence
inconsistent
present
statements
impeachment
reference
silence
probative
example
exercised
supervisory
powers
federal
courts
hold
prior
silence
used
impeachment
silence
probative
defendant
credibility
prejudice
defendant
might
result
see
hale
stewart
grunewald
doyle
ohio
find
impeachment
silence
violated
constitution
case
defendant
received
warnings
required
miranda
arizona
supra
arrested
selling
marihuana
time
made
statements
police
subsequent
trial
defendant
testified
framed
prosecutor
impeached
defendant
credibility
revealing
defendant
remained
silent
arrest
state
argued
prosecutor
actions
permissible
concluded
miranda
decision
compels
rejection
state
position
miranda
warnings
inform
person
right
remain
silent
assure
least
implicitly
subsequent
decision
remain
silent
used
accordingly
comport
due
process
permit
prosecution
trial
call
attention
silence
time
arrest
insist
speak
facts
case
time
told
need
unfavorable
inference
might
drawn
truth
trial
testimony
quoting
hale
supra
white
concurring
judgment
case
governmental
action
induced
petitioner
remain
silent
arrest
failure
speak
occurred
petitioner
taken
custody
given
miranda
warnings
consequently
fundamental
unfairness
present
doyle
present
case
hold
impeachment
use
prearrest
silence
violate
fourteenth
amendment
iv
decision
today
force
state
allow
impeachment
use
prearrest
silence
jurisdiction
remains
free
formulate
evidentiary
rules
defining
situations
silence
viewed
probative
prejudicial
merely
conclude
use
prearrest
silence
impeach
defendant
credibility
violate
constitution
judgment
appeals
affirmed
footnotes
raffel
defendant
decision
testify
first
trial
invocation
right
remain
silent
protected
fifth
amendment
case
petitioner
remained
silent
arrest
chose
testify
trial
decision
today
consider
whether
circumstances
prearrest
silence
may
protected
fifth
amendment
simply
reach
issue
rule
raffel
clearly
permits
impeachment
even
prearrest
silence
held
invocation
fifth
amendment
right
remain
silent
crampton
ohio
considered
claim
murder
defendant
right
remain
silent
burdened
unconstitutionally
argue
mitigation
punishment
without
risking
incrimination
question
guilt
recognized
defendant
speaks
defense
avoid
testifying
fully
long
held
defendant
takes
stand
behalf
claim
privilege
matters
reasonably
related
subject
matter
direct
examination
see
brown
walker
fitzpatrick
brown
thought
overly
harsh
situations
require
determination
whether
waive
privilege
take
account
matters
may
brought
also
generally
recognized
defendant
takes
stand
behalf
may
impeached
proof
prior
convictions
like
see
spencer
texas
cf
michelson
cf
luck
app
palumbo
justice
stevens
post
justice
marshall
post
suggest
constitutional
rule
raffel
limited
later
decision
fact
opinion
decided
since
raffel
challenged
holding
fifth
amendment
violated
defendant
impeached
basis
prior
silence
hale
expressly
declined
consider
constitutional
question
decision
stewart
based
federal
evidentiary
grounds
fifth
amendment
grunewald
stated
required
raffel
three
cases
merely
considered
question
whether
matter
federal
evidentiary
law
prior
silence
sufficiently
inconsistent
present
statements
admissible
see
also
infra
justice
marshall
contends
petitioner
prearrest
silence
probative
credibility
post
case
question
state
evidentiary
law
federal
criminal
proceeding
relevance
silence
course
matter
federal
law
see
hale
supra
justice
marshall
conclusion
introduction
evidence
trial
violated
due
process
relies
upon
reasoning
doyle
ohio
hale
post
decision
hale
rested
upon
nonconstitutional
grounds
see
supra
doyle
otherwise
distinguishable
see
infra
reached
similar
result
johnson
trial
judge
mistakenly
told
defendant
claim
privilege
defendant
invoked
privilege
prosecutor
commented
defendant
refusal
speak
supervisory
power
held
prosecutor
comments
constituted
error
trial
assured
defendant
might
claim
protections
fifth
amendment
stated
lementary
fairness
requires
accused
misled
score
see
doyle
ohio
supra
see
also
raley
ohio
justice
stevens
concurring
judgment
approach
petitioner
constitutional
claims
differs
reject
fifth
amendment
claim
privilege
compulsory
simply
irrelevant
citizen
decision
remain
silent
official
compulsion
speak
reject
due
process
claim
reasons
stated
dissenting
opinion
doyle
ohio
holds
defendant
elects
testify
behalf
waives
fifth
amendment
objection
use
prior
silence
purpose
impeachment
correctly
points
holding
squarely
supported
raffel
upheld
use
defendant
failure
take
stand
first
trial
impeach
testimony
retrial
nevertheless
rely
raffel
reliance
incorrectly
implies
defendant
decision
testify
trial
constitutionally
indistinguishable
silence
precustody
context
two
situations
fundamentally
different
trial
context
appropriate
presume
defendant
silence
exercise
constitutional
privilege
prohibit
official
comment
might
deter
exercising
privilege
central
purpose
fifth
amendment
privilege
protect
defendant
compelled
testify
trial
moreover
since
defendant
decision
whether
testify
typically
based
advice
counsel
often
explained
without
revealing
privileged
communications
attorney
client
reasons
application
prearrest
context
fact
citizen
constitutional
right
remain
silent
questioned
bearing
probative
significance
silence
contact
police
need
hold
every
citizen
duty
report
every
infraction
law
witnesses
order
justify
drawing
reasonable
inference
silence
situation
ordinary
citizen
normally
speak
citizen
official
compulsion
whatever
either
speak
remain
silent
see
reason
voluntary
decision
one
raise
issue
fifth
amendment
determining
whether
privilege
applicable
question
whether
petitioner
position
testimony
compelled
asserted
privilege
simply
whether
silent
different
view
ignores
clear
words
fifth
amendment
see
supra
consequently
simply
hold
admissibility
petitioner
failure
come
forward
excuse
shortly
stabbing
raised
routine
evidentiary
question
turns
probative
significance
evidence
presented
issue
federal
constitution
ii
reasons
stated
part
dissenting
opinion
doyle
ohio
agree
view
warnings
required
miranda
arizona
contain
implicit
assurance
subsequent
silence
may
used
defendant
see
ante
actually
acknowledged
doyle
see
implicit
assurance
far
unqualified
moreover
continue
disagree
view
repeated
today
ante
fundamental
unfairness
present
doyle
judgment
fairness
unfairness
using
defendant
postarrest
silence
impeachment
purposes
simply
depend
whether
received
miranda
warnings
rather
primarily
depends
whether
fair
infer
defendant
silent
asserting
constitutional
privilege
event
since
unpersuaded
due
process
rationale
doyle
readily
concur
rejection
similar
argument
case
justice
stewart
concurs
part
opinion
fifth
amendment
provides
pertinent
part
person
shall
compelled
criminal
case
witness
moreover
serious
question
continuing
vitality
raffel
johnson
stated
trial
judge
grants
claim
privilege
allows
used
accused
prejudice
disregard
matter
procedure
potentialities
oppressive
use
sanction
use
federal
courts
supervisory
powers
grunewald
held
error
permit
prosecutor
defendant
trial
use
assertion
fifth
amendment
privilege
witness
grand
jury
impeachment
effect
limited
raffel
cases
probative
value
outweighed
possible
impermissible
effect
jury
see
held
probative
value
assertion
privilege
negligible
issue
defendant
credibility
faced
necessity
deciding
whether
raffel
stripped
vitality
later
johnson
case
supra
otherwise
raffel
justice
black
writing
four
justices
expressly
overruled
raffel
think
special
circumstances
justify
use
constitutional
privilege
discredit
convict
person
asserts
value
constitutional
privileges
largely
destroyed
persons
penalized
relying
see
also
stewart
hale
comment
refusal
testify
remnant
inquisitorial
system
criminal
justice
murphy
waterfront
fifth
amendment
outlaws
penalty
imposed
courts
exercising
constitutional
privilege
cuts
privilege
making
assertion
costly
griffin
california
omitted
fifth
amendment
protects
individual
right
remain
silent
central
purpose
privilege
compulsory
avoid
unfair
criminal
trials
expression
conviction
defendant
criminal
case
must
presumed
innocent
state
burden
proving
guilt
without
resorting
inquisition
accused
lefkowitz
cunningham
stevens
dissenting
omitted
fifth
amendment
predicated
assumption
innocent
persons
might
found
guilty
compelled
testify
trials
every
trial
lawyer
knows
truthful
denials
guilt
may
considered
incredible
jury
either
inherent
improbability
explanation
reveal
unfavorable
facts
witness
associates
constitution
therefore
gives
defendant
lawyer
absolute
right
decide
accused
shall
become
witness
lakeside
oregon
stevens
dissenting
omitted
course
reason
encourage
citizen
conceal
criminal
activity
knowledge
roberts
pointed
concealment
crime
condemned
throughout
history
citizen
duty
raise
hue
cry
report
felonies
authorities
branzburg
hayes
established
tenet
law
least
early
century
holdsworth
history
english
law
ed
see
statute
westminster
first
edw
ch
statute
westminster
second
edw
chs
pp
first
congress
enacted
statute
imposing
criminal
penalties
upon
anyone
knowledge
actual
commission
certain
felonies
shall
conceal
soon
may
disclose
make
known
appropriate
authority
act
apr
stat
although
term
misprision
felony
archaic
ring
gross
indifference
duty
report
known
criminal
behavior
remains
badge
irresponsible
citizenship
deeply
rooted
social
obligation
diminished
witness
crime
involved
illicit
activities
unless
silence
protected
privilege
criminal
defendant
less
citizen
obliged
assist
authorities
omitted
petitioner
insists
constitutional
right
remain
silent
adverse
inferences
drawn
exercise
right
find
argument
singularly
unpersuasive
fifth
amendment
privilege
compelled
least
government
substantial
reason
believe
requested
disclosures
likely
incriminating
privilege
may
relied
upon
unless
invoked
timely
fashion
roberts
supra
approach
assuming
relevance
evidence
used
impeachment
also
rebuttal
even
petitioner
taken
stand
interesting
note
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
share
view
miranda
warnings
doyle
create
right
remain
silent
create
otherwise
unavailable
objection
use
defendants
silence
impeachment
purposes
see
post
however
agree
assumption
holding
evidence
silence
admissible
necessarily
rests
premise
quiet
person
duty
speak
see
post
dog
failure
bark
may
probative
whether
trained
watchdog
cf
conan
doyle
silver
blaze
complete
sherlock
holmes
generally
absence
express
assertion
privilege
presumption
privilege
exercised
see
roberts
supra
strikes
anomalous
assuming
raffel
survived
doyle
defendant
takes
stand
deemed
waive
fifth
amendment
objection
use
pretrial
silence
waive
regard
much
less
focused
hence
weaker
due
process
objection
perhaps
opinion
best
understood
assuming
raffel
good
law
facts
doyle
rationale
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
dissenting
today
holds
criminal
defendant
testimony
behalf
may
impeached
fact
go
authorities
arrest
confess
part
offense
decision
thus
strikes
blow
two
foundation
stones
constitutional
system
privilege
right
present
defense
decision
today
extraordinarily
broad
goes
far
beyond
simple
holding
rule
permitting
introduction
evidence
silence
face
accusation
circumstances
calling
response
violate
privilege
case
prosecution
allowed
cast
doubt
accused
testimony
acted
forcing
testify
go
police
volition
indicted
charged
even
accused
offense
volunteer
version
events
holding
criminal
defendant
testimony
may
impeached
prearrest
silence
three
patent
view
fatal
defects
first
mere
fact
prearrest
silence
unlikely
probative
falsity
defendant
trial
testimony
use
impeachment
purposes
contrary
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
second
drawing
adverse
inference
failure
volunteer
incriminating
statements
impermissibly
infringes
privilege
third
availability
inference
impeachment
purposes
impermissibly
burdens
decision
exercise
constitutional
right
testify
one
defense
use
prior
silence
impeachment
purposes
depends
majority
recognizes
ante
reasonableness
inference
inconsistent
statements
impeached
defendant
prior
silence
make
likely
trial
testimony
false
evidence
simply
irrelevant
inference
fairly
drawn
petitioner
failure
go
police
charges
brought
admit
committed
homicide
offer
exculpatory
explanation
order
petitioner
offer
explanation
necessarily
admit
fatally
stabbed
victim
thereby
supplying
strongest
possible
proof
essential
element
criminal
homicide
hard
imagine
purer
case
since
assume
absence
official
warnings
individuals
ignorant
oblivious
constitutional
rights
must
recognize
petitioner
may
acted
reliance
constitutional
guarantee
fact
petitioner
likely
informed
previously
privilege
since
two
prior
felony
convictions
app
one
least
twice
given
miranda
warnings
carry
implied
promise
silence
penalized
use
impeachment
purposes
doyle
ohio
may
well
remember
rights
informed
believe
promise
still
force
accordingly
inference
petitioner
conduct
inconsistent
exculpatory
trial
testimony
precluded
see
doyle
ohio
supra
hale
moreover
possible
explanations
silence
spring
readily
mind
conceivable
person
acted
might
believe
committed
crime
therefore
call
explain
police
indeed
witnesses
agreed
stabbing
victim
ran
across
street
climbed
flight
stairs
collapsing
initially
least
petitioner
might
known
homicide
explain
moreover
petitioner
testified
feared
retaliation
went
police
one
need
persuaded
possible
explanations
represents
true
reason
petitioner
conduct
recognize
availability
plausible
hypotheses
vitiates
inference
admissibility
evidence
depends
see
hale
supra
implies
decision
consistent
practice
common
law
common
law
silence
admissible
contradict
subsequent
statements
circumstances
naturally
called
response
example
silence
traditionally
considered
tacit
admission
statement
made
party
presence
heard
understood
party
liberty
respond
circumstances
naturally
calling
response
party
failed
respond
silence
considered
admission
prerequisites
absent
case
failure
speak
explained
assent
similarly
failure
assert
fact
used
impeachment
natural
circumstances
assert
fact
authority
cited
majority
support
proposition
ante
makes
clear
rule
invoked
unless
facts
affirmatively
show
witness
called
speak
circumstances
present
case
previously
observed
circumstances
silence
ambiguous
little
probative
force
hale
supra
since
petitioner
failure
report
explain
actions
prior
arrest
probative
falsity
testimony
trial
fundamentally
unfair
deprivation
due
process
allow
jury
draw
silence
inference
trial
testimony
false
doyle
ohio
supra
use
prearrest
silence
impeachment
purposes
also
violates
privilege
secured
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
privilege
prohibits
government
imposing
upon
citizens
duty
present
authorities
report
wrongdoing
see
marchetti
grosso
haynes
albertson
sacb
explained
order
offer
exculpatory
explanation
petitioner
inevitably
incriminate
facts
crucial
subsequent
prosecution
penalize
failing
relinquish
privilege
permitting
jury
draw
adverse
inference
silence
place
impermissible
burden
exercise
privilege
see
griffin
california
practical
effect
replaces
privilege
duty
incriminate
oneself
attempts
avoid
conclusion
asserting
burden
threaten
purposes
underlying
fifth
amendment
see
ante
hard
see
burden
substantial
direct
sophistry
assert
use
prearrest
silence
impeachment
infringe
privilege
fact
silence
come
unless
petitioner
chooses
testify
see
ante
accused
absolute
right
testify
defense
well
absolute
right
refuse
incriminate
prior
trial
may
forced
choose
fundamental
guarantees
may
ignore
commands
constitution
asserting
defendant
brought
difficulties
exercising
precious
right
present
defense
piously
proclaim
protection
individual
liberties
extend
protection
prosecution
case
chief
ensuring
evidence
come
jury
back
door
see
harris
new
york
brennan
dissenting
reasoning
saved
reliance
raffel
raffel
held
defendant
required
upon
testifying
retrial
disclose
failure
testify
earlier
trial
view
raffel
wrongly
decided
subsequent
cases
without
expressly
overruling
limited
severely
appear
rob
continued
vitality
resurrection
today
grunewald
read
raffel
holding
simply
defendant
testifies
second
trial
continue
take
advantage
privilege
asserted
first
trial
instead
taking
stand
defendant
becomes
subject
impeaching
credibility
like
witness
grunewald
carefully
pointed
raffel
focus
question
whether
involved
fact
probative
impeaching
defendant
credibility
ibid
logical
underpinnings
raffel
cut
away
almost
completely
griffin
california
thus
majority
statement
raffel
holds
fifth
amendment
violated
defendant
testifies
defense
impeached
prior
silence
ante
simplistic
overbroad
implies
unfairly
exclude
evidence
petitioner
prior
silence
countenance
perjury
see
ante
quotes
harris
new
york
supra
case
defendant
made
two
contradictory
statements
different
times
logical
infer
absent
explanation
contrary
defendant
lying
one
occasion
see
also
walder
one
statement
silence
necessarily
inconsistent
statement
basis
conjure
specter
perjury
finally
impeachment
prearrest
silence
impermissibly
burdens
constitutionally
protected
decision
testify
one
defense
today
decision
defendant
report
conduct
police
first
possible
moment
must
deciding
whether
testify
defense
take
account
possibility
testify
jury
may
permitted
add
omission
reasons
disbelieving
defense
means
person
thinks
may
done
something
wrong
must
immediately
decide
likely
without
assistance
counsel
whether
ever
charged
offense
brought
trial
may
wish
take
stand
may
later
want
take
stand
better
go
police
station
right
away
preserve
exculpatory
explanation
events
even
though
must
incriminate
provide
evidence
may
crucial
eventual
conviction
decides
incriminate
may
anticipate
right
testify
defense
undermined
argument
story
probably
untrue
volunteer
police
earliest
opportunity
strategic
decisions
must
made
individual
even
knows
charged
offense
accused
force
persons
make
kind
choice
two
fundamental
rights
places
intolerable
burden
exercise
rights
cuts
privilege
testifying
one
defense
making
assertion
costly
griffin
california
supra
therefore
forbidden
ii
explained
believe
use
impeachment
purposes
defendant
prearrest
failure
volunteer
version
events
authorities
constitutionally
impermissible
disagree
holding
case
well
emerging
conception
individual
duty
assist
state
obtaining
convictions
including
conception
believe
fundamentally
odds
constitutional
system
see
roberts
marshall
dissenting
conception
disparages
individual
freedoms
also
social
interest
preserving
liberties
integrity
criminal
justice
system
doubt
important
social
interest
enabling
police
prosecutors
obtain
convictions
serve
nation
well
subordinating
interest
safeguards
constitution
guarantees
criminal
defendant
see
also
cleary
mccormick
evidence
pp
ed
reason
reach
different
result
doyle
ohio
simply
doyle
defendant
received
miranda
warnings
furnishing
miranda
warnings
create
right
remain
silent
right
conferred
constitution
doubt
accused
interrogated
police
custody
without
receiving
miranda
warnings
remained
silent
silence
inadmissible
despite
lack
warnings
situation
less
facts
doyle
silence
insolubly
ambiguous
thus
properly
considered
use
doyle
silence
impeachment
purposes
fundamentally
unfair
broke
implied
promise
single
narcotics
agent
broke
promise
made
constitution
similarly
persons
taken
police
custody
may
rely
privilege
incriminate
failing
report
conduct
police
silence
also
insolubly
ambiguous
regard
facts
doyle
case
analytically
indistinguishable
however
doyle
possibility
defendant
may
known
constitutional
rights
became
certainty
informed
rights
police
simply
believe
cases
existence
privilege
renders
probative
value
accused
silence
negligible
view
plainly
prejudicial
effect
use
silence
impeachment
purposes
violates
defendant
federal
right
due
process
disagree
statement
lack
probativeness
evidence
merely
question
state
evidentiary
law
ante
see
mccormick
supra
wigmore
evidence
chadbourn
rev
gamble
tacit
admission
rule
unreliable
unconstitutional
doctrine
ripe
abandonment
rev
brody
admissions
implied
silence
evasion
equivocation
massachusetts
criminal
cases
rev
heller
admissions
acquiescence
miami
rev
note
tacit
criminal
admissions
rev
wigmore
treatise
lists
three
categories
cases
silence
may
used
impeachment
omissions
legal
proceedings
assert
naturally
asserted
circumstances
omissions
assert
anything
formerly
narrating
stand
elsewhere
matter
dealt
failure
take
stand
wigmore
supra
pp
footnotes
omitted
emphasis
original
confess
find
justice
stevens
view
fifth
amendment
incomprehensible
apparently
view
person
right
incriminate
exists
government
already
attempted
compel
see
ante
opinion
concurring
judgment
officials
tried
get
person
speak
evidently
duty
incriminate
reporting
crime
civic
duty
fifth
amendment
applicable
since
decision
speak
remain
silent
time
voluntary
see
ante
prohibition
compelled
another
way
expressing
right
incriminate
oneself
see
burr
cas
cc
settled
maxim
law
man
bound
criminate
means
compelling
person
incriminate
penalize
course
voluntary
decision
remain
silent
absence
official
compulsion
raise
issue
fifth
amendment
ante
stevens
concurring
judgment
since
voluntary
decision
speak
also
implicate
fifth
amendment
compelled
impose
duty
report
one
crime
official
accusation
made
compel
thus
bringing
fifth
amendment
play
griffin
california
makes
plain
constitution
also
prohibits
government
burdening
right
incriminate
oneself
penalizing
silence
present
case
violation
fifth
amendment
occurred
defendant
remained
silent
silence
later
used
criminal
trial
justice
stevens
relies
heavily
roberts
case
held
severe
sentence
imposed
defendant
result
refusal
provide
information
criminal
activities
persons
rejected
roberts
fifth
amendment
claim
grounds
plainly
inapplicable
case
least
government
substantial
reason
believe
requested
disclosures
likely
incriminating
privilege
may
relied
upon
unless
invoked
timely
fashion
see
marshall
dissenting
justice
black
concurring
opinion
four
members
grunewald
decided
constitutional
grounds
rather
supervisory
powers
eloquently
foreshadowed
reasoning
griffin
think
special
circumstances
justify
use
constitutional
privilege
discredit
convict
person
asserts
value
constitutional
privileges
largely
destroyed
persons
penalized
relying
seems
peculiarly
incongruous
indefensible
courts
exist
act
constitution
draw
inferences
lack
honesty
invocation
privilege
deemed
worthy
enshrinement
constitution
grunewald