Doyle v. Ohio - Significance
State of Ohio
That the prosecutor's use of Doyle's post-arrest silence during his trial for the purpose of casting doubt on Doyle's testimony violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
James R. Willis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Ronald L. Collins
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Harry A. Blackmun, William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
23 February 1976
Jefferson Doyle's right to due process was violated when a state prosecutor challenged the validity of his testimony through questions about his post-arrest silence after receiving the Miranda warning.
- Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287 (1939).
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965).
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (1975).
- Wood v. Ohio, 427 U.S. 610 (1976).
- Alschuler, Albert W. "A Peculiar Privilege in Historical Perspective: The Right to Remain Silent." Michigan Law Review, August 1996, p. 2625.
- Ed Cantrell Trial: 1979 - Shredded Prosecution, Fireworks In The Courtroom, Humble Pie Is Hard To Digest - Shredded Evidence
- Dothard v. Rawlinson - Case Background, The District Court Rules, A Split Decision, Dissenting Opinions, Further Readings
- Doyle v. Ohio - Significance
- Other Free Encyclopedias