Docket Info

Highlight

A comment on a defendant’s post-arrest silence is an improper comment on the right to remain silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

In considering whether counsel’s failure to object to a Doyle violation establishes a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different in the postconviction relief context, the district court must consider the factors outlined in State v. Wilder, 2018 ND 93, ¶ 9, 909 N.W.2d 684. They include: (1) the use to which the prosecution puts the post arrest silence; (2) who elected to pursue the line of questioning; (3) the quantum of other evidence indicative of guilt; (4) the intensity and frequency of the reference; and (5) the availability to the trial judge of an opportunity to grant a motion for mistrial or to give curative instructions.

A witness’s isolated reference to a defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel, without further elaboration or further mention by the State at any other time during the trial or in closing arguments, does not warrant a new trial for the defendant.

Briefs

Counsel