## Facts

- Miller was tried in Illinois for kidnapping, robbery, and murder; a codefendant testified under a plea agreement that all participants took part and each shot the victim.
- Miller testified and denied involvement, claiming others approached him only after the murder for advice.
- At the start of cross-examination, the prosecutor asked in front of the jury: “Why didn’t you tell this story to anybody when you got arrested?”
- Defense counsel immediately objected and, outside the jury’s hearing, moved for a mistrial on the ground that the question penalized Miller’s post-arrest, post-Miranda silence.
- The trial judge denied a mistrial, sustained the objection immediately, and instructed the jury to ignore the question; the question was not answered.
- The prosecutor did not ask further questions about post-arrest silence and did not mention silence in closing argument.
- The court later instructed the jury to disregard questions to which objections were sustained.
- It was undisputed that Miller received Miranda warnings at arrest, and he was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether due process is violated under Doyle v. Ohio when the prosecutor asks a single question about a defendant’s post-arrest, post-Miranda silence, but the objection is sustained immediately, the question is unanswered, curative instructions are given, and the prosecution does not pursue or argue the point.
2. If a Doyle violation occurred, whether the error required reversal (including whether it was harmless under the governing harmless-error standard in light of the trial record).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and upheld the conviction.
- The Court held that no Doyle violation occurred because the defendant’s post-arrest silence was not “used” against him at trial.
- The sustained objection, the lack of any answer, the curative instructions, and the prosecutor’s failure to exploit the question meant the jury did not receive the silence as evidence from which it could draw an adverse inference.
- Because there was no constitutional violation under Doyle on these facts, the Court did not need to decide harmlessness as a Doyle error.

## Legal Principles

- Under Doyle v. Ohio, due process forbids using a defendant’s post-arrest, post-Miranda silence to impeach the defendant, because Miranda warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will not be penalized.
- A Doyle violation requires that the defendant’s post-arrest silence be presented to the jury as substantive or impeachment evidence from which adverse inferences may be drawn.
- An isolated, unanswered question about post-arrest silence—followed by an immediate sustained objection, curative instructions, and no further prosecutorial reliance—does not, by itself, constitute a Doyle due process violation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a prosecutor’s single, unanswered question referencing a defendant’s post-Miranda silence, promptly stopped by the trial judge and not exploited before the jury, does not violate due process under Doyle because the silence is not actually used as evidence against the defendant.


Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987)