ASSOCIATED FOOD RETAILERS OF GREATER CHICAGO, INC., ET AL.
v.
JEWEL TEA CO., INC.

U.S. | 1965-06-07
No. 321
Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Goldberg concur in the judgment of the Court for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Goldberg's opinion in United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington and Meat Cutters v. Jewel Teg, ante, at 697., Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.
381 U.S. 761 Supreme Court of the United States (1965) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 14 L. Ed. 2d 713 · 85 S. Ct. 1797 · 1965 U.S. LEXIS 978 · SCDB 1964-133
Cited by 26 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment below is reversed. Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea, ante, p. 676.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Goldberg concur in the judgment of the Court for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Goldberg's opinion in United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington and Meat Cutters v. Jewel Teg, ante, at 697.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • Helton v. State, 424 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
    …nal protection against self-incrimination, thereby requiring a new trial. Comment upon the defendant’s failure to testify is of course improper. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), reh. denied 381 U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730. However, prosecutorial comment upon a general lack of defense evidence is permissible. See Smiley v. State, 395 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); also see Crook v. State, 391 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We find that the comment in…
  • Walker v. State, 701 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
    …testify is basic. Every criminal lawyer understands that prosecutorial comments on the defendant’s exercise of the right to remain silent are barred. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, reh’g denied, 381 U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730 (1965); Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17, 98 So. 613 (1924). This prohibition is, of course, founded on the provisions against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as article I, sect…
  • Elam v. State, 389 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
    …objected and moved for a mistrial, which was denied. He contends that this argument was an impermissible comment on his right to remain silent, citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. [*222] 1229,14 L.Ed.2d 106, reh. den. 381 U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730 (1965), and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065, reh. den. 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1283, 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967). We disagree and affirm. The remarks by the prosecutor were permissible com…

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw