Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Robert E. Helina

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 4, 1977No. 74-3453Published

1DissentEly, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent.

Our court has unequivocally held that it is constitutionally impermissible for the prosecution to use against an accused his pretrial silence, maintained in the exercise of his privilege against incrimination, unless the accused waives that privilege by offering “any testimony as to the contents of any conversation” at the relevant time in question. Fowle v. United States, 410 F.2d 48, 55 (9th Cir. 1969). The present case is controlled by Fowle. Accordingly, Helina’s conviction should be reversed if the District Court erroneously allowed the prosecution to question…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Raymond R. Fowle v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
  3. United States v. Jerry Wayne GrammerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  4. Eugene W. Beadnell v. United States of America, Gary S. Clemens v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API