## Facts

- Michael P. James was tried in Kentucky state court on multiple charges, including rape.
- The prosecutor informed defense counsel that James’s prior forgery conviction would be used to impeach him if he testified.
- James chose not to testify.
- Defense counsel requested that the jury be told not to place emphasis on James’s failure to testify, using the term “admonition.”
- The trial judge denied the request and gave no no-adverse-inference guidance to the jury.
- James was convicted.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, holding that James had requested an “admonition,” not an “instruction,” and that only an “instruction” would have triggered the protection recognized in Carter v. Kentucky.

## Issues

1. Whether Kentucky’s reliance on a technical “admonition” versus “instruction” distinction was an independent and adequate state ground barring enforcement of the defendant’s federal right to a no-adverse-inference jury charge upon request.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- Kentucky’s asserted procedural ground was not “firmly established and regularly followed” in a manner sufficient to block implementation of the federal right.
- James’s request, in substance, invoked the constitutional protection requiring a no-adverse-inference instruction upon request.
- A state may not require a particular label where the substance of the request clearly seeks the constitutional safeguard and the form defect does not serve a substantial state interest.

## Legal Principles

- A state procedural rule bars federal review or enforcement of a federal right only if the rule is independent and “firmly established and regularly followed.”
- Under Carter v. Kentucky, when a defendant requests it, the Constitution requires a jury instruction that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant’s failure to testify.
- Invocation of federal constitutional rights turns on substance, not technical nomenclature; courts should not condition protection on “magic words” where the defendant’s request clearly seeks the constitutional safeguard.

## Conclusion

Because James clearly requested jury guidance preventing adverse inferences from his silence, Kentucky could not deny the Carter-required instruction based on an inconsistent, technical distinction between an “admonition” and an “instruction,” and the conviction was reversed for further proceedings.


James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341 (1984)