Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Prosecutor comments on self-incrimination

I had a post a couple weeks back about prosecutors' comments in closing argument about the defendant's failure to testify, and noted that Ohio law is pretty liberal on that score:  statements that the state's case is "unrefuted" or "uncontradicted" are routinely allowed.  Along that line is the 6th District's decision last week in State v. Silvey, which rejected the defendant's contention that the prosecutor had crossed the line by summarizing the victim's testimony in summation and then telling the jury,

"And not one person has taken this stand and said that did not happen. Not one.  Look at the facts in the case, look at the testimony you've heard, and more importantly, look at the testimony that you didn't hear. No one took the stand and said this isn't true."

The problem with Silvey is that the case involved a molestation of a 12-year-old girl.  Needless to say, there were no witnesses to the incidents:  the only one who could have contradicted the victim's testimony was the defendant himself, because he was the only other one who was there.

It's one thing to argue that a comment that the state's evidence is "uncontradicted" doesn't directly reference the defendant's failure to take the stand; frankly, I think it does, and so do courts from a lot of other jurisdictions, but I can at least see the logic in the contention.  In the normal case, it is perhaps appropriate to note that there are no eyewitnesses which support the defendant's proposition, no alibi witnesses to establish he was elsewhere, no forensic witnesses to testify that it wasn't his fingerprints or his bullet or his DNA. 

But it's hard to see how it's not a reference when the only possible contradiction could come from the defendant himself, especially when that's bolstered by the prosecutor telling the jury to "look at the testimony you didn't hear."  And courts should be able, and willing, to make distinctions between cases like this and "normal" cases. 

That's why I don't get too exercised about cases like the one I talked about yesterday, State v. Jackson, where the court reversed a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct on exceedingly shaky grounds.  There are a lot more cases like Silvey than Jackson.

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it