Griffin v. California
Citation and Court
380 U.S. 609 (1965) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Eddie Dean Griffin was convicted of first-degree murder in California. During trial, he did not testify in his own defense. The trial judge instructed the jury that it could draw adverse inferences from Griffin’s failure to testify, and the prosecutor commented extensively on his silence. California’s constitution expressly permitted such comments. Griffin challenged this practice under the Fifth Amendment.
Issue
Does the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination prohibit a prosecutor and judge from commenting adversely on a defendant’s decision not to testify at trial?
Holding
Yes; the Fifth Amendment, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits both the prosecutor and the judge from commenting on the defendant’s failure to testify, because such comments penalize the exercise of the constitutional privilege.
Rule / Doctrine
The Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination means the government may not penalize a defendant for exercising his right to remain silent at trial. Adverse commentary by the prosecutor or adverse jury instructions impose a cost on the exercise of that right and are therefore unconstitutional.
Significance
Griffin v. California is the foundational case establishing that the Fifth Amendment privilege extends to silence at trial and bars adverse comment on that silence. It protects the defendant’s ability to remain silent without having the jury instructed to use that silence against him, and remains the cornerstone of no-adverse-inference doctrine.