|
No. 135435
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Douglas E. Ketchum |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Allegan - Corsiglia, G.) |
|
|
| Harold Emmett Shafier, III, |
|
Christine DuBois |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Harold Emmett Shafier, III, was accused of sexually abusing his 13-year-old adopted daughter. Although the jury initially reached an impasse, it ultimately convicted Shafier of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and acquitted him of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. On appeal, Shafier contended that he was entitled to a new trial, arguing that his constitutional rights, as set forth in Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610 (1976), were violated. In Doyle, the U.S. Supreme Court held that using a defendant’s post-Miranda silence for impeachment purposes violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Shafier’s case, the prosecutor asked the arresting officer numerous questions relating to Shafier’s post-Miranda silence. The prosecutor also questioned Shafier several times about whether he had ever said that he did not commit the crime, and mentioned in his closing argument the fact that Shafier had not denied abusing the girl. Defense counsel objected once, on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. A split Court of Appeals panel affirmed Shafier’s convictions in a published opinion. The majority found that the prosecutor’s comments on Shafier’s post-Miranda silence violated Doyle, but reasoned that Shafier had not shown that any error affected the outcome of the trial because of the other evidence of his guilt. The dissenting Court of Appeals judge would have granted a new trial on the basis of the constitutional error. Shafier appeals.
Top of Page
|
