THOMAS N. CLARK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LOUIS S. NELSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to testify, coupled with the jury instruction, violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.
A defendant was convicted of robbery, and the prosecutor commented on his failure to testify, which was later deemed unconstitutional. The conviction …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Griffin V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Habeas corpus. Clark is a California prisoner, convicted of robbery. At his trial, he did not take the stand. The prosecutor commented briefly on Clark’s failure to testify, telling the jury that they would receive an instruction on the subject. The court gave CAL JIC instruction 5L The comment and instruction violated the ruling in Griffin v. California, 1965, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, which was decided after Clark was tried. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. On petition for habeas corpus, the District Judge granted the writ and the Warden appealed. We vacated and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Chapman v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705.1 See Nelson v. Clark, 9 Cir., 1968, 388 F. 2d 985. The District Judge has now reconsidered, and has again ordered that the writ issue.
The judge concluded that “it cannot be said * * * beyond a reasonable doubt * * * that [the] * * * error did not influence the jury and affect the outcome of the trial.” We agree. One witness against Clark was the victim. His identification of Clark, while stated positively, leaves much to be desired. The other, and in many respects the key witness against Clark, was characterized by the California District Court of Appeal, in Clark’s appeal to it (unpublished), as “a scorned and perjurious woman”. She testified that Clark told her that he had participated in the robbery and described the clothes that he said that he was wearing during the robbery. If believed, her testimony would have been sufficient to convict. In the minds of the jury it could also have been thought to corroborate the victim’s identification of Clark. The jury could well have felt, in the light of the comment and the instruction, that Clark’s failure to deny or explain the woman’s testimony about him lent it credibility that it would not otherwise merit.
Affirmed.
. See also Ross v. California, 1968, 391 U.S. 470, 88 S.Ct. 1850, 20 L.Ed.2d 750; Fontaine v. California, 1968, 390 U.S. 593, 88 S.Ct. 1229, 20 L.Ed.2d 154; Anderson v. Nelson, 1968, 390 U.S. 523, 88 S.Ct. 1133, 20 L.Ed.2d 81.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965)
- Anderson v. Nelson, 390 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1968)
- Fontaine v. California, 390 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1968)
- Ross v. California, 391 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1968)
- Nelson v. Clark, 388 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Canton v. United States, 388 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1968)