Supreme Court of the United States

Lakeside v. Oregon

March 22, 1978435 U.S. 333

Summary

The Court held that giving a jury a cautionary instruction not to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's failure to testify does not violate the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, even when the defendant objects. The instruction is protective rather than coercive, and the constitutional right to counsel does not give defense counsel power to veto a legally permissible jury instruction. Justice Stevens, dissenting, would have held that giving the instruction over the defendant's objection impermissibly calls attention to the defendant's silence and increases the risk of adverse inferences.

Holding

  • Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. A trial judge does not violate the defendant's constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by giving, over the defendant's objection, an instruction directing the jury not to draw any adverse inference from the defendant's failure to testify.
  • Constitutional right to counsel and control over trial strategy. The constitutional right to counsel does not permit defense counsel to veto a legally permissible jury instruction, so giving the protective instruction over counsel's objection does not deny the defendant the assistance of counsel.

Docket 76-6942

Cited authorities

  • Rule 201
  • Rule 23
  • 57 Yale L.J. 145
  • 31 Mich. L. Rev. 226
  • 5 Harv. L. Rev. 71
  • 29 Mich. L. Rev. 191
  • 37 U. Cin. L. Rev. 671
  • 33 U. Chi. L. Rev. 657

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF