843 F. Supp. 2d 571
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Federal prosecution of Terrell Hampton for felon in possession of a firearm.
- Government sought to admit Hampton’s post-Miranda silence about the gun and the Facebook photo.
- Trial 1 ended in mistrial; motion in limine sought to admit silence evidence at retrial.
- Court denied the motion in limine under Rule 403, reserving full reasoning in a memorandum.
- Court analyzed whether silence constitutes an adoptive admission and its constitutional and evidentiary implications.
- Court ultimately held the Government’s silence evidence was inadmissible as it abused Rule 403 and risked unfair prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether silence constitutes an adoptive admission | Hampton’s silence was inconsistent with innocence and admissible | Silence cannot be used to infer guilt where there was no prior exculpatory narrative | No; adoptive admission not sufficiently proved here. |
| Constitutional implications of admitting silence (due process, Fifth Amendment) | Admission of silence would not violate due process or self-incrimination rights | Silence invites unconstitutional inference against the defendant | Not unconstitutional; but still inadmissible under balance of probative value and unfair prejudice. |
| Rule 403 balancing of probative value versus prejudice for silence evidence | Silence has probative value to prove acquiescence | Probability of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value | Probativeness de minimis; probative value did not outweigh prejudice; denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 F.2d 610 (Supreme Court 1976) (due process limits on post-arrest silence evidence)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (unlawful to expose the defendant to incriminating statements by others)
- Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1975) (silence during interrogation had little probative value; caution against inferences)
- Halter v. Goldman?**, 563 F.2d 501 (1st Cir. 1977) (admixture of silence context enhances probative value of a subsequent exculpatory statement)
- Agee, 597 F.2d 350 (3d Cir. 1979) (silence context emphasized by later statements; acquiescence analysis)
- Jinadu, 98 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (proponent must prove defendant heard, understood, and acquiesced to an accusatory statement)
- United States v. Ward, 377 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2004) (adoptive admission framework and probative value considerations)
- United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2002) (silence after Miranda waiver—context matters; not a blanket rule)