Lakeside v. Oregon

Lakeside vs. Oregon (435 U.S. 333) was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that trial judges may instruct a jury to not find a defendant guilty in any way based on his refusal to testify against himself, even if the defendant objects to the instruction.

Lakeside vs. Oregon
Argued January 18, 1978
Decided March 22, 1978
Full case nameLakeside vs. Oregon
Docket no.76-6492
Citations435 U.S. 333 (more)
Case history
PriorOregon Court of Appeals (π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘Žπ‘™ π‘—π‘’π‘‘π‘”π‘’π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘ π‘£π‘Žπ‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘; 𝑛𝑒𝑀 π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘Žπ‘™ π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘›π‘‘π‘’π‘‘); Oregon Supreme Court (πΆπ‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘‘ π‘œπ‘“ π΄π‘π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘™π‘  π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘£π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘’π‘‘; π‘—π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘¦ 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘–π‘›π‘ π‘‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘); U.S. Supreme Court grants 𝘀𝘦𝘳𝘡π˜ͺ𝘰𝘳𝘒𝘳π˜ͺ.
Holding
The instruction of a trial judge to the jury not to draw conclusions of guilt or innocence based on the defendant's right to remain silent, even if the defendant objects to the instruction, is not a compelled self-incrimination and does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, it does not violate the right to council under the Sixth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. Β· Potter Stewart
Byron White Β· Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun Β· Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist Β· John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, Blackmun, White, Rehnquist, Stewart
DissentStevens, joined by Marshall
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments

The defendant was in a Multnomah County Corrections Center when he was charged with escape in the second degree.[1] His defense council, as requested by the defendant, requested that the trial judge not inform the jury of the privilege against self-incrimination, claiming that it would raise a red flag to the jurors of his guilt. The trial judge denied the defendant's request and informed jury, claiming that procedural due process under the Constitution requires that jurors understand the defendant's rights. The jury subsequently found the defendant guilty of escape in the second degree.

The defendant appealed, claiming that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial judge. The Oregon Court of Appeals vacated the ruling of jury based on this claim and ordered a new trial. The Oregon Supreme Court, however, reversed the Court of Appeals, arguing that no due process rights could be violated by instructing the jury of the defendant's due process rights. The defendant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, due to conflicting rulings in various Courts across the Country, granted 𝘀𝘦𝘳𝘡π˜ͺ𝘰𝘳𝘒𝘳π˜ͺ.

Justice Potter wrote the opinion of the court. In a 6-2 decision, they upheld the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court, stating that the due process rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not violated during jury instruction.

References
  1. "Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 (1978)". Justia Law. US Supreme Court.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.