Brief Fact Summary. The petitioners, Ruth Elizabeth Chapman and Thomas LeRoy Teale (the “petitioners”), were convicted of robbery, kidnapping and murder. The petitioners declined to testify at trial, and the prosecution repeatedly referenced this fact to the jury to infer that the petitioners had something to hide.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The repeated referencing of a Defendant’s refusal to testify is not harmless error and is grounds for a new trial.
Petitioners are entitled to a trial free from the pressure of unconstitutional inferences.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether the prosecution and trial judge’s instructions to the jury to inferring the worst from petitioners’ refusal to testify is harmless error?
Held. The references and instructions to the jury were not harmless error, and the conviction should be set aside. The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) determined that if a constitutional error could not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is not harmless error. There was a reasonable likelihood that the error led to a conviction.
Discussion. The test for whether a constitutional error is harmless error is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the error led to the conviction.