Supreme Court of the United States
James v. Kentucky
April 18, 1984466 U.S. 341
Summary
The Court held that defense counsel's request for an admonition adequately invoked the defendant's constitutional right to have the jury instructed not to draw an adverse inference from his failure to testify. Kentucky could not reject the claim based on its distinction between admonitions and instructions because that distinction was not firmly established and regularly followed in this context. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for the state court to address further proceedings, including any harmless-error question.
Holding
- Whether the request for an admonition adequately preserved the constitutional claim. A defendant who plainly and reasonably requests jury guidance against drawing an adverse inference from his failure to testify adequately invokes the constitutional right, even if counsel uses the term "admonition" rather than "instruction." Kentucky's distinction between the two was not sufficiently firmly established and regularly followed to constitute an independent and adequate state ground for rejecting the claim.
Docket 82-6840
Cited authorities
- Rule 9.54(3)
Cited by
- Scesny v. Ryan
- The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant v. Willie McLaurin, Appellee
- Ivan Hodge, Petitioner, Appellee v. Anthony Mendonsa
- Brewer v. Marshall
- John Gomes Mendes, Petitioner, Appellant v. Bernard Brady, Respondent, Appellee
- Dennis Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction
- Cunny v. Bell
- Valdiviezo v. Shanley