Cronin v. Commissioner of Probation
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for operating a motor automobile beneath the influence of alcohol and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. At some point in the course of the booking approach, petitioner was presented written Miranda warnings and invoked his proper to remain silent. Petitioner contends that the prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument constituted constitutionally forbidden commentary on his post-Miranda silence. The district court’s denial of habeas relief is affirmed, exactly where, even if the Massachusetts Appeals Court misapplied the Doyle v. Ohio rule proscribing the prosecution’s use of a defendant’s post-Miranda silence in a criminal case, any comment on the petitioner’s silence correct right here was harmless when regarded in the context of the trial as a comprehensive.
Published at 04/07/2015