Jenkins v. Anderson
Citation and Court
447 U.S. 231 (1980) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Jenkins was charged with manslaughter. At trial he claimed self-defense. The prosecution used his pre-arrest silence — the fact that he had not come forward to police in the two weeks after the stabbing — to impeach his testimony. Jenkins argued this violated the Fifth Amendment.
Issue
Whether the use of pre-arrest silence to impeach a defendant’s trial testimony violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or the Due Process Clause.
Holding
The use of pre-arrest silence for impeachment does not violate the Fifth Amendment or due process; Doyle v. Ohio (which bars use of post-Miranda silence) does not apply because no governmental action induced the silence before arrest.
Rule / Doctrine
Doyle v. Ohio is premised on the implied assurance given by Miranda warnings that silence will not be used against a defendant. That rationale does not extend to pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. A defendant who takes the stand can be impeached with prior inconsistent conduct, including pre-arrest silence, without constitutional violation.
Significance
Draws a critical line between pre-arrest silence (usable for impeachment) and post-Miranda silence (not usable, per Doyle). Prosecutors can exploit a defendant’s failure to come forward before arrest when the defendant later testifies inconsistently.