After petitioners were arrested for a marihuana sale, Agent Beamer gave them Miranda warnings. At trial, each petitioner testified that the informant had framed them and that they were not the sellers. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked each petitioner why he had not told that exculpatory story to Beamer at the time of arrest, and the trial court overruled timely objections. The state appellate court upheld the questioning as going to credibility rather than as substantive evidence of guilt.
Issue
May a state prosecutor impeach a defendant's exculpatory story, first told at trial, by cross-examining the defendant about his failure to tell that story after arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings?
Rule
Use for impeachment purposes of a defendant's silence at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Miranda warnings implicitly assure that silence will carry no penalty, it is fundamentally unfair to use that silence to impeach a later trial explanation.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, police arrested Lena Ortiz for burglary, handcuffed her, and immediately gave her Miranda warnings. She said nothing. At trial, Lena testified for the first time that she had entered the house only because a neighbor yelled for help, and the prosecutor asked on cross-examination why she had not told officers that story when arrested.
Should the trial court allow that cross-examination?
Explanation. The majority rule is that the prosecution may not use a defendant's silence at the time of arrest and after Miranda warnings to impeach an exculpatory story first offered at trial. Miranda warnings implicitly assure the person that silence will not be penalized, and post-warning silence is also ambiguous because it may simply reflect exercise of the right to remain silent. So this impeachment use violates due process.