The Incriminating Sound of Silence: A Need for Protection of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence

Authors

Emily Locke, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

I. Introduction

II. Historical Origins of the Right to Remain Silent

III. Silence Prior to Miranda Warnings ... A. Pre-Arrest Silence as Substantive Evidence of Guilt ... B. Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence for Impeachment Purposes

IV. Circuit Court Split: Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence as Evidence of Guilt ... A. Circuit Courts Allowing Use of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence as Evidence of Guilt ... B. Circuit Courts Prohibiting Use of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence as Evidence of Guilt

V. Analysis ... A. Miranda as a Mere Reminder ... B. Silence as Compulsion ... C. Policy Justifications for Prohibiting Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence in the Prosecution’s Case-in-Chief ... D. The Confusion of Berghuis v. Thompkins on Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence

VI. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Emily Locke, The Incriminating Sound of Silence: A Need for Protection of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence, 100 Neb. L. Rev. 524 (2021)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol100/iss2/6