Skip to content
Name: Miranda v. Arizona
Summary

Appellant was interrogated post-Miranda warnings and remained mostly silent when confronted by law enforcement with the victim’s allegations. During the trial, an audio recording of the interrogation was played for the jury; the jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 357 (Adoptive Admissions); and the prosecutor told the jury, during both her closing and rebuttal arguments, appellant had the opportunity to deny the allegations made against him, but “[h]e chose not to say anything at all.” The Court of Appeal agreed with appellant that both the trial court and the prosecutor erred in violation of Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610, 617–618 and Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609, 615, which held that it was a violation of due process and fundamental fairness to use a defendant’s postarrest silence following Miranda warnings to impeach a defendant’s trial testimony. The court further found appellant was prejudiced by the trial court instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 357, along with the prosecutor’s subsequent references to his silence during her closing and rebuttal arguments. Thus, the court reversed the judgment.