The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Sehnal, 930 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1991):
The Prosecutor's Overzealous Argument. Tension exists between the privilege against self-incrimination and the natural response to the silence of the accused. "If someone is innocent, why doesn't he say so" is the average person's reaction to the silent defendant. Nonetheless, we have in our system made the decision that the right to remain silent is an important protection of the person against governmental inquisition or torture. As the right is important, it has been necessary to surround the right with some procedural protection in the course of the trial lest the right be effectively eroded by prosecutorial exploitation of the common reaction to silence. Consequently, it is long-established constitutional law that comment by the prosecution on the failure of the defendant to testify violates the guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.