Carter v. Kentucky
Citation and Court
450 U.S. 288 (1981), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Lonnie Joe Carter was tried in Kentucky state court and chose not to testify in his own defense. He requested that the trial judge instruct the jury that it must draw no adverse inference from his silence. The trial court refused to give the instruction, and Carter was convicted.
Issue
Whether the Fifth Amendment requires a trial court to give, upon a defendant’s request, a jury instruction that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant’s decision not to testify.
Holding
The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a trial court to give a no-adverse-inference instruction at the defendant’s request; refusing such an instruction unconstitutionally penalizes the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination.
Rule / Doctrine
When a defendant requests a jury instruction directing jurors to draw no adverse inference from his failure to testify, the trial court must give that instruction. This mandatory instruction is constitutionally required under the Self-Incrimination Clause. The defendant, however, controls whether the instruction is given — if the defendant does not request it, the court need not give it (and may not give it over objection, per Lakeside v. Oregon).
Significance
Carter v. Kentucky is the companion to Lakeside v. Oregon (1978), which held that a court may give the no-adverse-inference instruction over a defendant’s objection. Together, the cases establish that the instruction is the defendant’s to request or waive, but once requested it is constitutionally compelled. The case reinforces the practical scope of the Fifth Amendment in jury trials.