Lakeside v. Oregon

Summary

The Court held that a trial judge does not violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination by giving, over the defendant’s objection, an instruction directing the jury not to draw adverse inferences from the defendant’s failure to testify. The Court also held that giving the constitutionally accurate instruction did not violate the defendant’s right to counsel because counsel has no power to veto a permissible judicial instruction. The Court affirmed the judgment reinstating the conviction. Justice Stevens, dissenting, would have held that the defendant could waive the protective instruction because calling attention to silence may impose an unconstitutional cost.