Introduction
Griffin v. California is a Supreme Court case of 1965 related to murder in the first degree. Edward Dean Griffin faced justice for Essie Mae Hodson’s murder. After being invited by Hodson to her apartment and having a substantial conflict with her boyfriend caused by the woman’s sexual harassment, the defendant and the victim disappeared. Later in the morning, Griffin was witnessed in an alley close to Hodson’s apartment near a large trash box. The victim was subsequently found in this box, bleeding and injured but alive. She was taken to the hospital, however, she died there the next day.
Discussion
In the court, Griffin refused to testify, and according to a prosecutor, the defendant’s choice was evidence of guilt. He based his position on Article I, 13 of the California Constitution which stated:
“As to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge, if he does not testify or if, though he does testify, he fails to deny or explain such evidence, the jury may take that failure into consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as indicating that among the inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom those unfavorable to the defendant are the more probable” (“Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965),” n.d., para. 3).
In other words, when a defendant refuses or fails to deny or explain any fact or evidence against him in a criminal case, it should be considered by the jury or the court. According to the prosecutor, the defendant refused to testify as he could not deny the evidence that he had been in the same place where the body had been found (“Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965),” n.d.). In addition, he knew that when he had been in the victim’s apartment and had had sexual desire, she had not been injured. Consequently, he knew that Hodson had been in the alley, he was with the woman in the box injuring and mistreating her, and he was seen by a witness knowing what he had done (“Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965),” n.d.). From the prosecutor’s position, the consciousness of guilt and the absence of explanation in defense determined Griffin’s desire not to testify.
Conclusion
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the argument of the prosecutor and the judge. According to it, their adverse comment may be regarded as unconstitutional as it violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. According to it, “failure of a defendant to deny or explain the evidence of which he knew does not create a presumption of guilt, nor, by itself, warrant an inference of guilt nor relieve the prosecution of any of its burden of proof” (“Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965),” n.d., para. 4). There is presumption of innocence, and the refusal to testify may indicate emotions and fear of the prosecutor’s prejudice rather that guilt. In turn, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt based on evidence.
Reference
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). (n.d.). Justia. Web.