Doyle v. Ohio

The Supreme Court held that the criminal defendant's silence in response to a Miranda warning cannot be used to impeach them during cross examination.

In 1980 a similar case, Jenkins v. Anderson, reached the Supreme Court, its ruling distinguishing it from Doyle. The Court ruled that the prosecution is permitted to exploit as inculpatory evidence a defendant's failure to disclose an exculpatory testimony eventually presented in trial as defense, to government officials such as police in a prompt manner before the arrest. The petitioner in this case had committed murder and, weeks later, confessed to the crime but, in the process, embroidered the narrative by claiming self-defense as the justification. The prosecution mooted this during trial as evidence of guilt and perjury. After habeas corpus relief, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, recognizing no breach of the Fourteenth Amendment.^[1]

Salinas v. Texas (2013), a plurality opinion, held that mere silence during prearrest interrogations is inadequate to establish invocation of the right to remain silent, if the defendant has already chosen to speak. Specifically, if the defendant has elected to speak to police and then suddenly stops when confronted with inculpatory evidence, the defendant must explicitly invoke his right to remain silent in order for the silence not to be held against him.

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 426
• Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980)

• O'Keefe, F. R. (1976). "Impeaching a Defendant's Testimony by Proof of Post-Arrest Silence: Doyle v. Ohio". Cleveland State Law Review. 25 (2): 261–296. ISSN 0009-8876.

• Text of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) is available from: Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio)