Blakley v. Florida, 444 U.S. 904

Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice White, with whom Mr, Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

I dissent from the denial of certiorari. In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‍S. 610, 619 (1976), the Court held “that the use for impeachment purposes of petitioners’ silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

*905The ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‍petitioner in this ease was tried and convicted for the crime of sexual battery involving the use of great force. On direct examination in the State’s case in chief a police officer testified that ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‍petitioner refused to make a statement after he was arrested and given Miranda warnings. Defense objections to this testimony were overruled by the trial court. On appeal, petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by a divided Florida ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‍District Court of Appeal. 362 So. 2d 309 (1978).

I would grant certiorari in this case because the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal is in conflict with Doyle v. Ohio, supra. Indeed, the conflict with Doyle seems sufficiently clear ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‍to me to warrant summary reversal of petitioner’s conviction.

---

Lead Opinion

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th’ Dist. Certiorari denied.

Case Details

Case Name: Blakley v. Florida

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Oct 9, 1979

Citations: 444 U.S. 904; 100 S. Ct. 218; 62 L. Ed. 2d 141; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 3352; 78-1749

Docket Number: 78-1749

Court Abbreviation: U.S.