PRESTON

v.

WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Salazar, 485 F.2d 1272 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …efense Function § 5.-8(b) (Tent.Draft 1970), he may comment on a defendant’s credibility as a witness. See Reagan v. United States, 157 U.S. 301, 306, 15 S.Ct. 610, 39 L.Ed. 709 (1895); Dyson v. United States, 283 F. 2d 636 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 974, 81 S.Ct. 1944, 6 L.Ed.2d 1264 (1960); United States v. Odom, 348 F.Supp. 889 (M.D.Pa.1972). Finally, the prosecutor’s statements that Carballo was “clean” and had no motive to lie do not constitute reversible error. Not until the jury had retired t…
• Calloway v. Louie L. Wainwright, 409 F.2d 59 (5th Cir. 1968)
  …8). Under these circumstances the prosecutor cannot draw unfavorable inferences from the failure of the accused to testify on the merits of the accusation. A case closely in point is Dyson v. United States, 283 F. 2d 636 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. den. 366 U.S. 974, 81 S.Ct. 1944, 6 L.Ed.2d 1264 (1961), in which the Court held that by calling attention to his denials of guilt, the defendant had in effect waived his privilege against self-incrimination. Dyson is predicated upon Diggs v. United States, 220 F. 54…
• Klepper v. United States, 331 F.2d 694 (9th Cir. 1964)
  …United States Attorney could comment, within proper limits, on what explanation defendants had chosen to make. We hold the United States Attorney here did not exceed those proper limits. Dyson v. United States, 9 Cir. 1960, 283 F. 2d 636, cert. den. 366 U.S. 974, 81 S.Ct. 1944, 6 L.Ed.2d 1264. Appellant argues that “mere silence” cannot be used against him on his trial. We agree. We agree silence can properly aid the innocent and the guilty. But this was not “mere silence.” This comment by the United Stat…