Legal Restraint
It was a case in 1965, Griffin v. California, where a man was convicted of murder in part because he did not take the stand in his own defense. During the trial the prosecution instructed the jury that because the defendant did not take the stand they could take that into consideration and draw inferences that were "unfavorable to the defendant…." (Griffin) When this case was overturned there came a general rule that neither the prosecution nor the judge may mention to the jury the fact that the defendant did not take the stand. The Supreme Court determined that "the prosecutor's comment and the court's acquiescence are the equivalent of an offer of evidence and its acceptance." (Griffin) This was determined to be a violation of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination because the defendant's inaction and refusal to speak was taken as evidence.
The Supreme Court was correct when it determined that a defendant's refusal to take the stand during a trial could...
A person's right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution and should not be infringed upon. If a defendant does not take the stand in trial they are simply exercising their constitutional rights and by mentioning this to the jury for consideration implies that the defendant did not take the stand because they would incriminate themselves. This turns their exercise of their rights into evidence against them, and this evidence, in turn, is forced from them against their will. This is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Part 2
When it comes to lineups and other forms of identification of suspects, there has developed a strict protocol for conducting such events. This has grown out of the case of U.S. v. Wade in which the Supreme Court determined that a defendant's right to counsel was guaranteed not only at trial, but at "any critical confrontation by the prosecution at pretrial proceedings where…
