stand in his own defense (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

stand in his own defense in California

59 California opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2025 8 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (47)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Vargasgreen
cal · 1973 · cited in 13 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–2022
2 sentences

2022Analysis It is “well established” that Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 “prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense.” (People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 475-476 .) “‘“Griffin forbids either direct or indirect comment”’” on the defendant’s decision not to testify.

2021“If he gets up on the stand and testifies that this is what happened, but there is zero evidence to back that up, you treat his testimony the same way you treat all the other testimony.” Later on, the prosecutor reiterated the burden of proof was his alone, but when a defendant testifies, the jury still must assess the credibility of the defendant’s testimony and purported alibi. “[W]hen a defendant testifies, you question his testimony the exact same way you question everybody else’s.” It is “well established that although Griffin [v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 ] prohibits reference to a

1013
Nelson v. O'NEILgreen
scotus · 1971 · cited in 6 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1990
2 sentences

1990(People v. Brown (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 649, 657 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 130 ]; People v. Atkins (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 348, 356-357 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 855 ]; People v. Matola (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 686, 692-693 .) In contrast, in Nelson v. O’Neil (1971) 402 U.S. 622 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 222 , 91 S.Ct. 1723 ], the United States Supreme Court held that when “a *562 codefendant takes the stand in his own defense, denies making an alleged out-of-court statement implicating the defendant, and proceeds to testify favorably to the defendant concerning the underlying facts, the defendant has been denied no rights protected

1990(People v. Brown (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 649, 657 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 130 ]; People v. Atkins (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 348, 356-357 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 855 ]; People v. Matola (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 686, 692-693 .) In contrast, in Nelson v. O’Neil (1971) 402 U.S. 622 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 222 , 91 S.Ct. 1723 ], the United States Supreme Court held that when “a *562 codefendant takes the stand in his own defense, denies making an alleged out-of-court statement implicating the defendant, and proceeds to testify favorably to the defendant concerning the underlying facts, the defendant has been denied no rights protected

46
People v. Szetogreen
cal · 1981 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1985–1990
2 sentences

1988The Griffin rule “prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense” (People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 34 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 652 , 623 P.2d 213 ]), and applies with equal force to a defendant’s refusal to answer questions during a postarrest interrogation (Bo yer v. Patton (3d Cir. 1978) 579 F.2d 284 ).

1988The Griffin rule “prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense” (People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 34 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 652 , 623 P.2d 213 ]), and applies with equal force to a defendant’s refusal to answer questions during a postarrest interrogation (Bo yer v. Patton (3d Cir. 1978) 579 F.2d 284 ).

44
People v. Grantgreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1974
2 sentences

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

44
People v. Burnsgreen
calctapp · 1969 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1974
2 sentences

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

44
People v. Beghtelgreen
calctapp · 1966 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1969
2 sentences

1969(People v. Grant, 268 Cal.App.2d 470, 475 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 111 ]; People v. Gioviannini, 260 Cal.App.2d 597, 604-605 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 303 ]; see People v. Beghtel, 239 Cal.App.2d 692, 695 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 235 ]; People v. Erickson, 254 Cal.App.2d 395, 401 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 108 ]; People v. Montigo, 248 Cal.App.2d 32, 38 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 33 ]; see also People v. Dillinger, 268 Cal.App.2d 140, 144-145 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 720 ].) The comments in the instant ease reflect only on the state of the evidence.

1969(People v. Grant, 268 Cal.App.2d 470, 475 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 111 ]; People v. Gioviannini, 260 Cal.App.2d 597, 604-605 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 303 ]; see People v. Beghtel, 239 Cal.App.2d 692, 695 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 235 ]; People v. Erickson, 254 Cal.App.2d 395, 401 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 108 ]; People v. Montigo, 248 Cal.App.2d 32, 38 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 33 ]; see also People v. Dillinger, 268 Cal.App.2d 140, 144-145 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 720 ].) The comments in the instant ease reflect only on the state of the evidence.

33
People v. Bradfordgreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022
2 sentences

2021“If he gets up on the stand and testifies that this is what happened, but there is zero evidence to back that up, you treat his testimony the same way you treat all the other testimony.” Later on, the prosecutor reiterated the burden of proof was his alone, but when a defendant testifies, the jury still must assess the credibility of the defendant’s testimony and purported alibi. “[W]hen a defendant testifies, you question his testimony the exact same way you question everybody else’s.” It is “well established that although Griffin [v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 ] prohibits reference to a

2017(See People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 945 ; People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 565-566 ; People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1304 ; People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 554 ; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 ; People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1340 ; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 ; People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 475-476 [“It is now well established that although Griffin[ v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 ( 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 )] prohibits reference to a 7 defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘doe

23
People v. Morleygreen
calctapp · 1928 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1968
2 sentences

1968Code, § 770.) " Declarations and statements made by the defendant are original evidence against him, and the rules as to the impeachment of witnesses do not apply to the proof thereof, even if he takes the stand in his own defense. ’ ’ (People v. Morley (1928) 89 Cal.App. 451, 461 [ 265 P. 276 ].

1968Code, § 770.) " Declarations and statements made by the defendant are original evidence against him, and the rules as to the impeachment of witnesses do not apply to the proof thereof, even if he takes the stand in his own defense. ’ ’ (People v. Morley (1928) 89 Cal.App. 451, 461 [ 265 P. 276 ].

23
United States v. Robinsongreen
scotus · 1988 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2025
2 sentences

2025(Doyle, supra, 426 U.S. at p. 618 ; Champion, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1147–1448; see United States v. Robinson (1988) 485 U.S. 25, 34 [“It is one thing to hold, as we did in Griffin, that the prosecutor may not treat a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent at trial as substantive evidence of guilt; it is quite another to urge, as [the] defendant does here, that the same reasoning would prohibit the prosecutor from fairly responding to an argument of the defendant by adverting to that silence.”].) 33.

2004Griffin and Doyle's protection of the right to remain silent is a “shield,” not a “sword” that can be used to “cut off the prosecution’s ‘fair response’ to the evidence or argument of the defendant.” (People v. Austin, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 1612 , quoting United States v. Robinson (1988) 485 U.S. 25, 32 [ 99 L.Ed.2d 23 , 108 S.Ct. 864 ].) Questions or argument suggesting that the defendant did not have a fair opportunity to explain his innocence can open the door to evidence and comment on his silence.

22
People v. Ratliffgreen
cal · 1986 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2022
2 sentences

2004(CALJIC Nos. 2.90 [the defendant is presumed innocent; the prosecution bears the burden of proof], 2.60 [no inference can be drawn from the defendant’s failure to testify], 2.61 [the defendant may choose to rely on the state of the evidence in deciding whether to testify; no lack of testimony on the defendant’s part makes up for the People’s failure of proof].) It has long been established that “although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense

2004(CALJIC Nos. 2.90 [the defendant is presumed innocent; the prosecution bears the burden of proof], 2.60 [no inference can be drawn from the defendant’s failure to testify], 2.61 [the defendant may choose to rely on the state of the evidence in deciding whether to testify; no lack of testimony on the defendant’s part makes up for the People’s failure of proof].) It has long been established that “although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense

22
People v. Lewisgreen
calctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2009
2 sentences

2006NOTES [*] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of sections 1 and 2 of the Discussion in the majority opinion. [**] See footnote *, ante. [2] "It has long been established that `although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant's failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule "does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses."` [Citations.] Thus, `[a]s a general principle, prosecutors may allude to

2006NOTES [*] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of sections 1 and 2 of the Discussion in the majority opinion. [**] See footnote *, ante. [2] "It has long been established that `although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant's failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule "does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses."` [Citations.] Thus, `[a]s a general principle, prosecutors may allude to

22
People v. Smithgreen
calctapp · 1971 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1974
2 sentences

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

22
People v. Betheagreen
calctapp · 1971 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1974
2 sentences

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

22
People v. Chandlergreen
calctapp · 1971 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1974
2 sentences

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

1974It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ (People v. Burns, 270 Cal.App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 688 ]; accord, People v. Smith, 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-33 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Bethea, 18 Cal.App.3d 930, 936 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; People v. Chandler, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805-806 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; People v. Grant, 268 Cal.

22
Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCanngreen
scotus · 1943 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
2 sentences

1973McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281 [ 87 L.Ed. 268, 275-276 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 143 A.L.R. 435 ]; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ] [cert. den. 385 U.S. 952 ( 17 L.Ed.2d 229 , 87 S.Ct. 332 )].) In the instant case the only contention purporting to prove inadequacy is counsel’s refusal to permit defendant to take the stand in his own defense.

1973McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281 [ 87 L.Ed. 268, 275-276 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 143 A.L.R. 435 ]; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ] [cert. den. 385 U.S. 952 ( 17 L.Ed.2d 229 , 87 S.Ct. 332 )].) In the instant case the only contention purporting to prove inadequacy is counsel’s refusal to permit defendant to take the stand in his own defense.

22
People v. Reevesgreen
cal · 1966 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
2 sentences

1973McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281 [ 87 L.Ed. 268, 275-276 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 143 A.L.R. 435 ]; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ] [cert. den. 385 U.S. 952 ( 17 L.Ed.2d 229 , 87 S.Ct. 332 )].) In the instant case the only contention purporting to prove inadequacy is counsel’s refusal to permit defendant to take the stand in his own defense.

1973McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281 [ 87 L.Ed. 268, 275-276 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 143 A.L.R. 435 ]; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ] [cert. den. 385 U.S. 952 ( 17 L.Ed.2d 229 , 87 S.Ct. 332 )].) In the instant case the only contention purporting to prove inadequacy is counsel’s refusal to permit defendant to take the stand in his own defense.

22
People v. Hardygreen
calctapp · 1969 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
2 sentences

1973The essence of the Griffin rule is that it prohibits reference to a defendant's failure to take the stand in his own defense. ( People v. Hardy, 271 Cal. App.2d 322, 330 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 557 ]; People v. Burns, 270 Cal. App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 688 ].) The rule does not, however, *637 extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. ( People v. Hardy, supra, at pp. 330-331 ; People v. Burns, supra . ) The comments complained of were in this category.

1973The essence of the Griffin rule is that it prohibits reference to a defendant's failure to take the stand in his own defense. ( People v. Hardy, 271 Cal. App.2d 322, 330 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 557 ]; People v. Burns, 270 Cal. App.2d 238, 247 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 688 ].) The rule does not, however, *637 extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. ( People v. Hardy, supra, at pp. 330-331 ; People v. Burns, supra . ) The comments complained of were in this category.

22
Charles M. Luck v. United Statesgreen
cadc · 1965 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
22
United States v. Irving Napuegreen
ca7 · 1969 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
22
United States v. Harold Morefieldgreen
ca7 · 1969 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
22
People v. Montigogreen
calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
22
People v. Dillingergreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
22
People v. Ericksongreen
calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
22
People v. Giovianninigreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
22
People v. Burchgreen
calctapp · 1961 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
22
Griffin v. Californiagreen
scotus · 1965 · cited in 8 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–2022
2 sentences

2022Analysis It is “well established” that Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 “prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense.” (People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 475-476 .) “‘“Griffin forbids either direct or indirect comment”’” on the defendant’s decision not to testify.

2021“If he gets up on the stand and testifies that this is what happened, but there is zero evidence to back that up, you treat his testimony the same way you treat all the other testimony.” Later on, the prosecutor reiterated the burden of proof was his alone, but when a defendant testifies, the jury still must assess the credibility of the defendant’s testimony and purported alibi. “[W]hen a defendant testifies, you question his testimony the exact same way you question everybody else’s.” It is “well established that although Griffin [v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 ] prohibits reference to a

18
Chapman v. Californiared
scotus · 1967 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–2006
2 sentences

1979It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule “ ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Vargas, 9 Cal.3d 470, 475 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 15 , 509 P.2d 959 ]). 8 In the light of the entire record, even assuming, without conceding, that there was a Griffin error, we can only conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the supposed Griffin error could have had no si

1979It is now well established that although Griffin prohibits reference to a defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule “ ‘does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Vargas, 9 Cal.3d 470, 475 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 15 , 509 P.2d 959 ]). 8 In the light of the entire record, even assuming, without conceding, that there was a Griffin error, we can only conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the supposed Griffin error could have had no si

13
People v. Rogersgreen
cal · 2006 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018(See People v. Rogers , supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 849, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) Because the *818 record showed that defendant could communicate with and assist counsel when it suited him, the trial court was not obligated to institute competency proceedings when defendant resumed and escalated his oppositional behavior at the second trial.

2018(See People v. Rogers , supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 849, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) Because the *818 record showed that defendant could communicate with and assist counsel when it suited him, the trial court was not obligated to institute competency proceedings when defendant resumed and escalated his oppositional behavior at the second trial.

12
People v. Browngreen
calctapp · 1978 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990(People v. Brown (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 649, 657 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 130 ]; People v. Atkins (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 348, 356-357 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 855 ]; People v. Matola (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 686, 692-693 .) In contrast, in Nelson v. O’Neil (1971) 402 U.S. 622 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 222 , 91 S.Ct. 1723 ], the United States Supreme Court held that when “a *562 codefendant takes the stand in his own defense, denies making an alleged out-of-court statement implicating the defendant, and proceeds to testify favorably to the defendant concerning the underlying facts, the defendant has been denied no rights protected

1990(People v. Brown (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 649, 657 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 130 ]; People v. Atkins (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 348, 356-357 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 855 ]; People v. Matola (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 686, 692-693 .) In contrast, in Nelson v. O’Neil (1971) 402 U.S. 622 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 222 , 91 S.Ct. 1723 ], the United States Supreme Court held that when “a *562 codefendant takes the stand in his own defense, denies making an alleged out-of-court statement implicating the defendant, and proceeds to testify favorably to the defendant concerning the underlying facts, the defendant has been denied no rights protected

12
People v. Woodsgreen
calctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
11
People v. Mejiagreen
calctapp5d · 2019 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
11
Strickland v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
11
People v. Olguingreen
calctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
11
United States v. Owensgreen
scotus · 1988 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
11
People v. Stewartgreen
cal · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
11
People v. Mesagreen
calctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
11
People v. Johnsongreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
11
In Re Avenagreen
cal · 1996 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
People v. Lucerogreen
cal · 1988 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
People v. Ledesmagreen
cal · 1987 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (33)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Hollinquest green
calctapp · 2010
2 sentences

2025(People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293 , 1334 & fn. 10.) However, in Hollinquest, the Court of Appeal concluded that “‘the principles of Doyle apply even if a defendant does not take the stand in his own defense thereby subjecting himself to potential impeachment.’” (Hollinquest, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1557 , quoting United States v. Fambro (2008) 526 F.3d 836, 841 .) The claim in Hollinquest nevertheless related to testimony, in contrast with this case. ( Hollinquest, supra, at pp. 1554 , 1560–1561 [admission of investigator’s testimony violated Doyle, but error harmless].) Assuming

2025(People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293 , 1334 & fn. 10.) However, in Hollinquest, the Court of Appeal concluded that “‘the principles of Doyle apply even if a defendant does not take the stand in his own defense thereby subjecting himself to potential impeachment.’” (Hollinquest, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1557 , quoting United States v. Fambro (2008) 526 F.3d 836, 841 .) The claim in Hollinquest nevertheless related to testimony, in contrast with this case. ( Hollinquest, supra, at pp. 1554 , 1560–1561 [admission of investigator’s testimony violated Doyle, but error harmless].) Assuming

22023–2025
Doyle v. Ohio green
scotus · 1976
2 sentences

2025(Doyle, supra, 426 U.S. at p. 618 ; Champion, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1147–1448; see United States v. Robinson (1988) 485 U.S. 25, 34 [“It is one thing to hold, as we did in Griffin, that the prosecutor may not treat a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent at trial as substantive evidence of guilt; it is quite another to urge, as [the] defendant does here, that the same reasoning would prohibit the prosecutor from fairly responding to an argument of the defendant by adverting to that silence.”].) 33.

2023We disagree. 23 Doyle holds the prosecution may not, consistent with due process and fundamental fairness, use post arrest silence following Miranda warnings to impeach a defendant’s testimony at trial. ( Doyle, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 617– 618.) The principles of Doyle apply even where, as here, a defendant does not take the stand in his own defense because “ ‘[a] defendant is entitled to rely on the assurance . . . that his silence will not be used against him.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Hollinquest (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1557 .) Citing People v. Hurd (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1084 , the Atto

22023–2025
People v. Hughes green
cal · 2002
2 sentences

2022(People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 .) For example, a prosecutor “may commit Griffin error if he or she argues to the jury that certain testimony or evidence is uncontradicted, if such contradiction or denial could be provided only by the defendant, who therefore would be required to take the witness stand.” (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1339 (Bradford).) Nevertheless, a prosecutor is permitted “to comment on a defendant’s failure to introduce material evidence or call logical witnesses.” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 554 ; see Bradford, at p. 1340 [references

2017(See People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 945 ; People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 565-566 ; People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1304 ; People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 554 ; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 ; People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1340 ; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 ; People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 475-476 [“It is now well established that although Griffin[ v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 ( 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 )] prohibits reference to a 7 defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘doe

22017–2022
People v. Brown green
cal · 2003
2 sentences

2022(People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 .) For example, a prosecutor “may commit Griffin error if he or she argues to the jury that certain testimony or evidence is uncontradicted, if such contradiction or denial could be provided only by the defendant, who therefore would be required to take the witness stand.” (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1339 (Bradford).) Nevertheless, a prosecutor is permitted “to comment on a defendant’s failure to introduce material evidence or call logical witnesses.” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 554 ; see Bradford, at p. 1340 [references

2017(See People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 945 ; People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 565-566 ; People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1304 ; People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 554 ; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 ; People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1340 ; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 ; People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 475-476 [“It is now well established that although Griffin[ v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 ( 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 )] prohibits reference to a 7 defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, that rule ‘doe

22017–2022
Lyles v. United States green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

1973McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281 [ 87 L.Ed. 268, 275-276 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 143 A.L.R. 435 ]; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774 [ 51 Cal. Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ] [cert. den. 385 U.S. 952 ( 17 L.Ed.2d 229 , 87 S.Ct. 332 )].) (12b) In the instant case the only contention purporting to prove inadequacy is counsel's refusal to permit defendant to take the stand in his own defense.

1973McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281 [ 87 L.Ed. 268, 275-276 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 143 A.L.R. 435 ]; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ] [cert. den. 385 U.S. 952 ( 17 L.Ed.2d 229 , 87 S.Ct. 332 )].) In the instant case the only contention purporting to prove inadequacy is counsel’s refusal to permit defendant to take the stand in his own defense.

21973–1973
Burgess v. State green
md · 1931
2 sentences

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judical discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case.” (Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); 1 see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir. 1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich.App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United St

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judical discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case.” (Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); 1 see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir. 1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich.App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United St

21972–1972
People v. Eldridge green
michctapp · 1969
2 sentences

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judical discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case.” (Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); 1 see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir. 1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich.App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United St

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judical discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case.” (Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); 1 see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir. 1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich.App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United St

21972–1972
United States v. Anthony Palumbo green
ca2 · 1968
2 sentences

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judical discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case.” (Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); 1 see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir. 1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich.App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United St

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judicial discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case." ( Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); [1] see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir.1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir.1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich. App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir.1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United

21972–1972
United States v. Ell Johnson, Jr., Alias 'Butch' Alias John Doe green
ca1 · 1969
2 sentences

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judical discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case.” (Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); 1 see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir. 1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich.App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United St

1972The statute, in our view, leaves room for the operation of a sound judicial discretion to play upon the circumstances as they unfold in a particular case." ( Luck v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768 [ 121 App.D.C. 151 ] (italics in original); [1] see also United States v. Johnson (1st Cir.1969) 412 F.2d 753, 756 ; United States v. Palumbo (2d Cir.1968) 401 F.2d 270, 273-275 ; Burgess v. State (1931) 161 Md. 162 [ 155 A. 153 , 75 A.L.R. 1471 ]; People v. Eldridge (1969) 17 Mich. App. 306 [ 169 N.W.2d 497 ]; compare United States v. Napue (7th Cir.1968) 401 F.2d 107, 113 , with United

21972–1972
People v. Champion green
calctapp · 2005
12025–2025
People v. Chatman green
cal · 2006
12025–2025
United States v. Fambro green
ca5 · 2008
12025–2025
People v. Seumanu green
cal · 2015
12025–2025
People v. Hurd green
calctapp · 1998
12023–2023
People v. Hill green
calctapp · 1998
12021–2021
People v. Gaulden green
calctapp · 1974
12017–2017
People v. Brady green
cal · 2010
12017–2017
People v. Campos green
calctapp · 2007
12017–2017
People v. Miller green
cal · 1990
12017–2017
People v. Guerrero green
calctapp · 2007
12017–2017
People v. Garelick green
calctapp · 2008
12017–2017
People v. Lewis green
cal · 2009
12017–2017
People v. Thomas green
cal · 2012
12017–2017
People v. Medina green
calctapp · 1974
12016–2016
People v. Huggins green
cal · 2006
12006–2006
People v. Austin green
calctapp · 1994
12004–2004
People v. Matola green
calctapp · 1968
11990–1990
Littlefield v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1982
11989–1989
People v. Robles green
cal · 1970
11988–1988
Robert Victor Boyer v. Ernest S. Patton green
ca3 · 1978
11988–1988
People v. Castro green
cal · 1985
11986–1986
In Re Lewallen green
cal · 1979
11981–1981
People v. Rist green
cal · 1976
11979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 187 (15) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 353 (8) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 1235 (5) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 352 (5) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 211 (5) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 245 (5) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 1101 (3) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 1200 (3) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 1220 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 1111 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 995 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 59 (1928–2025) GA 42 (1973–2019) PA 40 (1964–2024) IL 30 (1964–2022) OH 28 (1969–2024) NY 27 (1924–2018) MD 21 (1957–2013) FL 19 (1959–2019) TX 17 (1958–2024) AL 14 (1972–2014) MI 13 (1942–2019) LA 11 (1976–2016) IN 11 (1981–2017) MS 11 (1970–2026) WA 9 (1967–2007) CO 8 (1958–2021) AZ 8 (1965–2024) TN 8 (1979–2013) NC 8 (1972–2023) KY 8 (1930–2019) CT 8 (1971–2002) VA 7 (1971–2014) DC 7 (1972–2009) MN 6 (1976–2014) NJ 6 (1964–2018) WI 5 (1945–2022) UT 5 (2017–2025) MT 4 (1980–2020) AR 4 (1994–2024) WV 3 (1974–2020) ME 3 (1977–1984) SC 3 (1980–2000) NH 3 (1985–2012) MA 3 (1983–2013) SD 3 (1984–1988) MO 3 (1973–1988) RI 3 (1988–2003) WY 3 (1974–1978) OK 2 (1962–1966) OR 2 (1966–1975) AK 2 (1996–2010) ID 2 (1971–1989) PR 2 (1943–1961) ND 2 (1981–1981) NM 2 (1986–1990) VT 2 (1984–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check