Lakeside v. Oregon
United States Supreme Court
435 U.S. 333 (1978)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Lakeside (defendant) was charged with escaping from a minimum-security prison. Several witnesses testified in Lakeside’s defense at his jury trial, but Lakeside chose not to testify. Over Lakeside’s objection, the judge instructed the jury to disregard Lakeside’s silence and not to draw any adverse inferences based on his decision not to testify. Lakeside was convicted. Lakeside filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the trial court should not have instructed the jury to ignore his decision to remain silent because, in a trial such as his in which there were several defense witnesses, the jury likely did not notice Lakeside’s lack of testimony. The jury instruction, Lakeside argued, likely called jurors’ attention to his decision not to testify and may have caused the jurors to draw adverse inferences. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, and the Oregon Supreme Court then reinstated the conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
