The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1992):
The standard of review for prosecutorial comment on a defendant's failure to testify or post-arrest silence is unclear. Compare United States v. Mares, 940 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir.1991) (claim that prosecutor's closing argument violated defendant's Fifth Amendment rights is reviewed de novo) and United States v. Schuler, 813
Page 1104
The use for impeachment purposes of a defendant's silence at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings violates due process. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2245, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). However,
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.