Petitioner stabbed and killed Doyle Redding and surrendered to authorities about two weeks later. At trial, petitioner testified that he acted in self-defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned petitioner about not going to the police or otherwise reporting his self-defense account before his surrender, and the prosecutor referred to that silence again in closing argument. Petitioner claimed that use of his prearrest silence to impeach his testimony violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issue
Whether the prosecution's use of a criminal defendant's prearrest silence to impeach his credibility after he chooses to testify violates the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
When a criminal defendant voluntarily testifies, the Constitution does not prohibit the prosecution from using the defendant's prearrest silence to impeach credibility. Such use does not violate the Fifth Amendment, and it does not violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment where no governmental action induced the silence and the silence occurred before arrest and before Miranda warnings.
🔒
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, Nolan Price was charged with aggravated assault after a late-night stabbing outside an apartment complex. At trial, Nolan testified that he acted in self-defense, and on cross-examination the prosecutor asked why, during the ten days before police found him, he never contacted law enforcement to report that he had been attacked first.
Nolan argues that this cross-examination violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. How should the court rule on the federal constitutional claim?
Explanation. The majority held that when a defendant voluntarily testifies, the prosecution may use the defendant's prearrest silence to impeach credibility without violating the Fifth Amendment or due process. The rationale is that a testifying defendant is subject to ordinary truth-testing devices of cross-examination, and the unfairness identified in cases involving postarrest, post-Miranda silence is absent where no governmental action induced the earlier silence.