332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672
Adamson was tried and convicted by a jury in a California Superior Court of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary.1
The information charged him with prior convictions for burglary, larceny, and robbery.2 He answered that he had suffered those convictions, which under California Penal Code section 1025 barred the prosecution from alluding to them during the trial itself.3 Adamson did not testify.4
The prosecution introduced evidence that six of his fingerprints appeared on a freshly broken small door at the crime scene.5 He had later asked an unidentified person whether the latter would be interested in purchasing a diamond ring.6 Tops of women's stockings were found in his room though they did not match the lower portion recovered from under the victim's body.7
Under the California Constitution, article I, section 13, and Penal Code section 1323, the prosecutor commented to the jury on Adamson's failure to explain or deny the evidence against him.8 The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider that failure.9 Because Adamson had answered the prior-conviction charges affirmatively, California law would have permitted the prosecution to impeach him with those convictions on cross-examination had he taken the stand.10
The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence in People v. Adamson, 27 Cal. 2d 478, 165 P.2d 3.11 Adamson sought review in the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari under Judicial Code section 237 to consider his federal constitutional challenges to the California statute and its application at his trial.12
Whether the privilege against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?13
No. Adamson was convicted in a California state court of first degree murder.17 The prosecutor commented on his failure to testify under California law permitting such comment.18 The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege is not made effective by the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection against state action.19 The Bill of Rights protected against the federal government only.20 The Fourteenth Amendment did not alter that rule for this privilege.21
The privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.22
Related opinions on this issue
The Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights.23 The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has an independent potency.24 It expresses a demand for civilized standards in the administration of criminal justice.25
The Twining case should not be overruled.26 The incorporation theory would bring about a great confusion in the administration of criminal justice in the states.27 It would impose upon the states a uniform code of criminal procedure.28
Joined by Justice Douglas
The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.29 The privilege against self-incrimination is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.30 The California statute compels a defendant to be a witness against himself through the comment on his failure to testify.31 The comment upon his failure to testify is a form of coercion that penalizes the exercise of the constitutional right.32
The Twining case should be overruled.33 The doctrine of incorporation is the only logical and practical way to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.34 The majority's decision permits the states to violate fundamental rights and is a step backward in the protection of individual liberty.35
Whether a state statute permitting comment on a defendant's failure to explain or deny evidence against him violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the defendant faces impeachment with prior convictions if he testifies?36
The comment upon the failure of the defendant to testify does not violate due process.37 The statute does not compel the defendant to be a witness against himself but merely permits the inference to be drawn from his silence.38 A state may control the situation in accordance with its own ideas of efficient administration of criminal justice.39
No. Adamson did not testify at his California trial for first degree murder.40 The prosecutor commented on his failure to explain or deny evidence including fingerprints on the broken door and inquiry about a diamond ring.41 Because Adamson had answered prior conviction charges affirmatively under Penal Code section 1025, California law would have allowed impeachment with those convictions on cross-examination if he testified.42 The statute permits comment on failure to explain proven facts without shifting the burden of proof or creating any presumption of guilt.43
The California statute and its application at Adamson's trial do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.44
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Rutledge
The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental right.45 It is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.46 The California procedure violates that right.47 The comment upon the failure to testify is an unconstitutional burden upon the exercise of the privilege.48
This guarantee of freedom from self-incrimination is grounded on a deep respect for those who might prefer to remain silent before their accusers.49 If the defendant does not take the stand, his silence is used as the basis for drawing unfavorable inferences against him as to matters which he might reasonably be expected to explain.50 If he does take the stand, he is necessarily compelled to testify against himself through the coercive pressure of the provision.51