In Griffin v. California (1965), the prosecutor did indeed argue that defendant Griffin’s choice not to testify was evidence of his guilt. Here’s a breakdown of the argument and its overturning:

Prosecutor’s Argument:

1. Emphasis on Silence: The prosecutor highlighted Griffin’s silence, highlighting that he had the opportunity to explain his position but chose not to.
2. Knowledge of Events: The prosecutor implied that Griffin’s silence stemmed from his knowledge of the events and his inability to provide a convincing counter-narrative.
3. Inference of Guilt: The prosecutor drew a direct link between Griffin’s silence and guilt, suggesting that an innocent person would naturally want to defend themselves.

Why it was Overturned:

1. Fifth Amendment Violation: The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor’s argument violated Griffin’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This right states that no one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
2. Chilling Effect on Testimony: The Court argued that allowing prosecutors to comment on silence would have a chilling effect on a defendant’s right to remain silent. Fear of negative inferences could discourage innocent defendants from exercising their right.
3. Unfair Burden of Proof: Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant by inferring guilt from silence was deemed unfair and unconstitutional. The prosecution has the responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove their innocence.

Impact:

The Griffin v. California decision established a significant precedent by prohibiting prosecutors from commenting on a defendant’s silence during closing arguments. It reaffirmed the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and protected defendants from unfair inferences of guilt based on their exercise of this right.