Franklin v. Duncan (1995)
Facts
Franklin was convicted of a 1969 murder largely on the testimony of his daughter, who claimed in 1989 to have recovered a repressed memory that she witnessed him commit the crime; there was no physical evidence tying him to the murder. After Franklin had been arrested, Mirandized, arraigned, and assigned counsel, his daughter visited him in jail after discussing her plan with the prosecutor and receiving assistance in arranging the visit; when she urged him to tell the truth, he pointed to a sign stating conversations might be monitored and remained silent. At trial the prosecution introduced that silence, argued it compellingly proved guilt, and the jury was instructed it could treat the silence as an admission. The trial court also excluded defense evidence consisting of contemporaneous press reports showing that the crime details described by the daughter were publicly available, even though the prosecution argued those details could only have been known by an eyewitness.
Issue
Whether Franklin’s conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution because the prosecution used his post-Miranda jailhouse silence as evidence of guilt, because the daughter’s jail questioning occurred with impermissible government involvement after arraignment and outside counsel’s presence, and because the trial court excluded defense evidence that directly rebutted the prosecution’s claim that only an eyewitness could know the crime details. Also at issue was whether those errors were harmless on federal habeas review.
Rule
The government may not use a defendant’s post-Miranda silence as substantive evidence of guilt when the defendant was relying on the privilege against self-incrimination; this principle applies even when the immediate questioner is a private party if the circumstances show the defendant was invoking that right. After arraignment, the Sixth Amendment is violated when the government intentionally creates or knowingly exploits a situation likely to induce incriminating statements from the accused outside counsel’s presence. A defendant also has a constitutional right to present relevant, significant defense evidence that directly disproves a key prosecutorial contention, and exclusion of such evidence can violate due process. On habeas review, these trial errors require relief if they had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict or leave the court in grave doubt about harmlessness.
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
Test yourself
At Omar's trial, the prosecutor offers Lena's testimony and argues that Omar's silence was an adoptive admission proving guilt. Under the governing rule, should the evidence be admitted for that purpose?