Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Hutchinson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 21, 1970No. 54562Published

1ConcurrenceDonnelly, Judge

I concur fully in the Per Curiam opinion, but file this concurring opinion so that I may express my view that in future cases, wherein the accused does not testify and does not object, trial courts should instruct the jury to the effect “that a defendant cannot be compelled to take the witness *557stand and that the jurors should not permit the failure to testify to influence them in arriving at a verdict.” Miller v. United States, 8th Cir., 410 F.2d 1290, 1296. I find support for this point of view in Caton v. United States, 8th Cir., 407 F.2d 367, wherein the Court expressed itself in the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Bruno v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  4. Baker v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
  5. State v. ShulsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API