Facts
- Lonnie Joe Carter was tried in Kentucky state court on criminal charges.
- Carter did not testify, and the defense presented no testimony.
- Defense counsel timely requested a jury instruction stating that the defendant is not compelled to testify and that the jury may not infer guilt or prejudice the defendant from his failure to testify.
- The trial judge refused, citing a Kentucky statute barring judicial “comment” on a defendant’s failure to testify.
- Carter was convicted.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments did not require the instruction and that giving it would violate the state “no comment” statute.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
- Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a state trial judge, upon a defendant’s proper request, to instruct the jury that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant’s failure to testify.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court in an 8–1 decision (Justice Stewart).
- The Court held that, upon proper request, a defendant is constitutionally entitled to a no-adverse-inference instruction concerning the decision not to testify.
- The Court rejected Kentucky’s reliance on its “no comment” statute as a basis to deny the requested instruction.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s ruling.
Legal Principles
- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a defendant from evidentiary penalty based on silence at trial.
- Upon a defendant’s timely request, the trial court must instruct the jury that the defendant is not required to testify and that the defendant’s silence may not be used to infer guilt or to prejudice the defendant.
- General instructions to decide the case “from the evidence alone” or that the defendant is presumed innocent do not adequately substitute for a specific no-adverse-inference instruction when one is requested.
- A cautionary instruction designed to protect the privilege against self-incrimination is not invalid as an impermissible “comment” on the defendant’s silence.
Conclusion
A state trial judge violates the Fifth Amendment (as applied through the Fourteenth) by refusing, after a proper defense request, to instruct the jury that it may not draw any adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify.