Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972

Griffin v. California - Significance, A Remnant Of The Inquisitorial System, Unwarranted Inferences, Impact, Federal Circuit Court

defendant york petitioner united

Petitioner

Griffin

Respondent

State of California

Petitioner's Claim

That a prosecutor's comment on the fact that the defendant, Griffin, did not take the stand in a state criminal trial violated the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Morris Lavine

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Albert W. Harris

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II

Justices Dissenting

Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (Earl Warren did not participate)

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

28 April 1965

Decision

State laws allowing adverse comment on the failure of a defendant to take the witness stand to deny or explain evidence violates a defendant's right not to incriminate himself.

Related Cases

  • Wilson v. United States, 149 U.S. 60 (1893).
  • Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
  • Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947).
  • Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1998.

Further Readings

  • FindLaw Internet Legal Resources. http://www.findlaw.com.
  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.
  • Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Vol. 4. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
  • Lieberman, Jethro K. The Evolving Constitution. New York: Random House, 1992.

Additional Topics

Griffin v. California - Significance

The decision to forbid comments by prosecutors or judges on the failure of a defendant to testify at his own trial preserved the presumption of innocence to which a defendant is constitutionally entitled. On the night that Essie Mae was found she had been seen by a Mr. Villasenor in an alley with petitioner Griffin. Griffin was later convicted of the first degree murder of Essie Mae, after a jury …

Griffin v. California - A Remnant Of The Inquisitorial System

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to decide if comment on the failure to testify violated the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court had ruled in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) that this clause was applicable to the states by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. Hogan was decided after the Supreme Court of California had affirmed Griffin's conviction. Justice …

Griffin v. California - Unwarranted Inferences

Justice Stewart wrote the dissent. He stated that the question in this case was whether Griffin had been "compelled . . . to be a witness against himself." Justice Stewart felt that compulsion was the key here. "I think that the Court in this case stretches the concept of compulsion beyond all reasonable bounds, and that whatever compulsion may exist derives from the defendant's choice not to test…

Griffin v. California - Impact

Griffin v. California - Federal Circuit Court

Griswold v. Connecticut - Significance, 1879 Law Alive And Well, On To The Supreme Court, Decision Reverses Convictions [next] [back] Green v. County School Board - Historical Background, The Facts At Hand, The Supreme Court Reverses

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 3 years ago

ignorance is bliss. to say the way a court case is portrayed "sucked" only reveals the incapacity for someone to truely understand it

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

i think this case sucked and he should of died or he did and i dont get it?

make it a better story or dont make it a website