stating that the standard for probable cause “clearly is something less than ‘certainty’ or ‘evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ ”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the standard for probable cause “clearly is something less than ‘certainty’ or ‘evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ ”
- con curring opinions of Seitz, C. J. and Weis, J.
- “A defendant who chooses to answer questions with half truths cannot claim constitutional protection to remain silent as to the other half. A complete answer to a question may be as inconsistent with a partial reply as one completely different in detail.” (emphasis added)
- separate concurring opinions of Seitz, C. J., and Weis, J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WEIS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in Part II of the Court’s opinion and in the result reached in Part I.
*730 I do not see this as a case where the prosecutor commented unfavorably upon the defendant’s “silence.” The district attorney’s remarks were focused upon the issue of the defendant’s credibility, and the comments on variations between the tenor of his statements at time of arrest and the testimony at trial were proper.
A defendant who chooses to answer questions with half truths cannot claim constitutional protection to remain silent as to the other half. A complete answer to a question may be as inconsistent with a partial reply as one completely different in detail. When Agnellino chose to respond to police interrogation, he effectively waived his right to remain silent, at the very least, to the topics covered by the questioning.
I think we need go no further in deciding this case.