holding the rule against adverse comments on a defendant's failure to testify as violative of the privilege against self-incrimination, announced in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, not to be retroactive
How later courts described this case
- holding the rule against adverse comments on a defendant's failure to testify as violative of the privilege against self-incrimination, announced in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, not to be retroactive
- holding that the Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1965) rule prohibiting comment on the accused's failure to testify is to be applied prospectively only
- denying retroactivity to decisions that were final at the time of the decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor and trial judge may not make adverse comment on defendant's failure to testify)
- considering whether a rule change should be given retroactive effect, and concluding that the court must consider the extent of reliance which has been placed on the old rule
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Black,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,
dissents for substantially the same reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, at 640 .
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.