Pamela S. Bartley v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The court reversed Bartley’s manslaughter conviction because the trial court admitted a recorded interview in which she had received Miranda warnings, expressly limited the subjects she would discuss, and repeatedly remained silent or declined to answer questions about her husband’s death. The court held that post-warning silence, including selective silence, is protected from use as substantive evidence when the defendant has invoked the right and has not knowingly waived it, and that the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also directed that the prosecution not comment on her silence and generally not introduce firearms conclusively unrelated to the killing on retrial. Cunningham, J., dissenting and joined by Scott, J., would have affirmed because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence.