Case Citator › Griffin v. California

Griffin v. California

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
380 U.S. 609
Decided
Confirmed treatments
7
Flagged citations read
219 of 219
Citing cases (total)
8,756
Treatment dates
1965–2000
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Griffin v. California is limited; all 219 flagged citations have been read. The 7 confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

8,756 later cases cite Griffin v. California; 219 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Griffin v. California?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The California Supreme Court held that Griffin could not be invoked on collateral attack against a conviction that became final before Griffin was decided.

    In re Spencer · Supreme Court of California · filed

    Moreover, we point out that Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106], which invalidated the California comment rule, does not apply to the instant case because, under our decisions, Griffin cannot be invoked here on collateral attack.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court held that Griffin does not apply retroactively to convictions already final when Griffin was announced.

    Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We have considered the purposes of the Griffin rule, the reliance placed upon the Twining doctrine, and the effect upon the administration of justice of a retrospective application of Griffin. After full consideration of all of the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires, retrospective application.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court applied Tehan to hold Griffin's Fourteenth Amendment rule unavailable to a trial that began before Griffin was decided.

    Philpot v. State · Court of Appeals of Alabama · filed

    Even if we were to be wrong in this view, yet since Philpot’s trial began before April 28, 1965 (the date of Griffin’s delivery), the Fourteenth Amendment rule there abrogated is not retrospective. Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L.Ed.2d 453.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Connecticut Supreme Court held Griffin unavailable to a 1961 conviction whose direct appeal was allowed only in 1969.

    State v. Brown · Supreme Court of Connecticut · filed

    We conclude that the Griffin rule does not govern disposition of the present appeal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Connecticut Supreme Court held that Griffin did not require a requested instruction forbidding jurors from drawing adverse inferences from a defendant's failure to testify.

    State v. Branham · Supreme Court of Connecticut · filed

    To forbid the jury to draw any inference from his failure to testify would go beyond the “silence” mandated by Griffin v. California, supra.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • New York's highest court declined to extend Griffin's criminal no-adverse-inference safeguard to civil litigation between private parties.

    Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co. · New York Court of Appeals · filed

    We therefore decline to extend to civil cases a rule originally designed as a safeguard in criminal prosecutions (see, e.g., Griffin v California, 380 US 609; see, also, 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev, 1961], § 2272, subd [e], p 439, n 14).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Griffin to prosecutorial comment on a testifying defendant's opportunity to tailor his testimony after hearing other witnesses.

    Portuondo v. Agard · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We decline to extend Griffin to the present context.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Griffin v. California and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace