## Facts

- Eric Weir stabbed Ronnie Buchanan during a fight in a nightclub parking lot; Buchanan later died from the stab wounds.
- Weir left the scene and did not report the incident to police.
- Weir was arrested; the record did not indicate that he received Miranda warnings during the period in which he remained silent after arrest.
- At trial, Weir testified, admitted the stabbing, and for the first time claimed self-defense and that the stabbing was accidental.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Weir about his failure, upon arrest, to tell officers his exculpatory story and to disclose the knife’s location.
- The jury convicted Weir of first-degree manslaughter; the conviction was affirmed on direct review.
- In federal habeas proceedings, the district court granted relief and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that using post-arrest silence for impeachment was constitutionally unfair even absent Miranda warnings.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits a prosecutor from impeaching a testifying defendant with the defendant’s post-arrest silence when the record does not show that Miranda warnings were given.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that due process was not violated by impeachment using Weir’s post-arrest silence because the record did not indicate he had been given Miranda warnings during the relevant period.
- The Court rejected the view that post-arrest silence is categorically protected from impeachment use absent Miranda warnings.
- The Court left the treatment of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence largely to state evidentiary rules, subject to the constitutional baseline announced.

## Legal Principles

- The due process bar recognized in Doyle v. Ohio applies when post-arrest silence follows Miranda warnings, because the warnings carry an implicit governmental assurance that silence will not be used against the defendant.
- Absent Miranda warnings (and thus absent comparable governmental assurances), a State does not violate due process by permitting cross-examination about post-arrest silence to impeach a defendant who chooses to testify.
- The probative value and admissibility of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence for impeachment may be regulated by state evidence law, but due process does not require exclusion on this record.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Constitution does not forbid impeachment with a defendant’s post-arrest silence when the record does not show Miranda warnings were given, limiting Doyle’s due process protection to post-arrest silence induced by Miranda’s implied assurances.


Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (1982)