Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Stewart v. United States (366 U.S. 1…

Nor do we believe it reasonable to argue that the jury trying this case would not have inferred that this defendant had failed to testify in his prior trials when the prosecutor asked, 'This is the first time you have gone on the stand, isn't it, Willie?' Indeed, the recognition that such an inference will in all likelihood be drawn from leading questions of this kind lies at the root of the long-established rule that such questions may not properly be put unless the inference, if drawn, would be factually true.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Stewart v. United States (366 U.S. 1…

Insanity was not merely, as the Court says, Stewart's chief defense; it was his defense. His lawyer put it aptly: ' (The prosecutor) knows as well as I, as anybody in this courtroom, the only defense we have is insanity.' [21] Thus, there is not involved in this case the danger that the jury, being told as laymen of the defendant's previous failure to testify in his own behalf, reasoned that if Stewart did not do the acts with which he was charged he would have said so.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Stewart v. United States (366 U.S. 1…

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in unequivocal terms that no person may 'be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' To protect this right Congress has declared that the failure of a defendant to testify in his own defense 'shall not create any presumption against him.' [1] Ordinarily, the effectuation of this protection is a relatively simple matter-if the defendant chooses not to take the stand, no comment or argument about his failure to testify is permitted.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature