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 name | Lakeside vs. Oregon |
| Docket no. | 76-6492 |
| Citations | 435 U.S. 333 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Oregon Court of Appeals (π‘ππππ ππ’πππππππ‘ π£ππππ‘ππ; πππ€ π‘ππππ πππππ‘ππ); Oregon Supreme Court (πΆππ’ππ‘ ππ π΄ππππππ πππ£πππ ππ; ππ’ππ¦ π πππ‘ππππ πππππ π‘ππ‘ππ); U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari. |
| 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 | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Blackmun, White, Rehnquist, Stewart |
| Dissent | Stevens, 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. 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 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 Miranda rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments 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 certiorari to unify them.
Justice Potter wrote the opinion of the court. In a 6-2 decision, they upheld the ruling of the Oregon State Supreme Court, stating that the due process rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not violated during jury instruction.