A Defendant’s Post Arrest, Pre Miranda Silence to Accusation of Criminal Conduct, Not Prompted by the Police, Is Admissible in State’s Case in Chief

State v. Johnson, Minn.Ct.App., 1/30/2012.  Four guys, one of whom was alleged to be Mr. Johnson, robbed B.A..  B.A. reported this to a (sort of) nearby police officer who, with the aid of other officers stopped the guys.  B.A. asked Mr. Johnson, “Why did you beat me?  Why did you take my things?”  Mr. Johnson did not respond to this inquiry.

The trial court joined Mr. Johnson’s trial with that of a codefendant, Mr. Maull.  Mr. Johnson complained on appeal that this was a mistake.  The court appeals upheld the joinder, concluding that four of the factors to be considered – nature of offense charged, potential prejudice to Mr. Johnson, and interests of justice – favored joinder.  The remaining factor - the impact on B.A. –neither favored nor disfavored joinder.

Mr. Johnson also complained that his speedy trial rights were violated.  Mr. Johnson could not really articulate what prejudice to his defense resulted from the delay in commencing his trial and so the appellate court rejected his speed trial claim.

The appellate court also concludes that Mr. Johnson’s post arrest, pre Miranda silence can be introduced in the state’s case, provided that the police did nothing to produce that silence.  The six federal courts of appeals that have ruled on this question have split fifty-fifty.  Unfortunately the 8th circuit sides with admission of this silence and that’s good enough for the court of appeals.