Commonwealth v. Davis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurrence
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. J ustice Pomeroy :
I cannot agree that the prosecutor’s use of the word “uneontroverfced” in his closing argument to the jury constituted adverse comment upon appellant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights, as interpreted in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1965).
For the remarks of a prosecuting attorney to be impermissible for this reason, it must appear that “the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.”…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Tad R. Knowles v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
- Commonwealth v. MillikenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- United States of America Ex Rel. James Leak, Relator-Appellant v. Harold W. Follette, Warden, Green Haven Prison, Stormville, New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.