Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Blakley v. Florida, 1979 — 444 U.S. 904 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Blakley v. Florida
444 U.S. 904·Supreme Court of the United States·1979
with whom Mr, Justice Brennan joins,
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 78-1749.
Blakley v. Florida.
[MAJORITY]
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th’ Dist. Certiorari denied.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice White,]
Mr. Justice White,
with whom Mr, Justice Brennan joins,
dissenting.
I dissent from the denial of certiorari. In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610, 619 (1976), the Court held “that the use for impeachment purposes of petitioners' silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The petitioner in this ease was tried and convicted for the crime of sexual battery involving the use of great force. On direct examination in the State’s case in chief a police officer testified that petitioner refused to make a statement after he was arrested and given Miranda warnings. Defense objections to this testimony were overruled by the trial court. On appeal, petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by a divided Florida District Court of Appeal. 362 So. 2d 309 (1978).
I would grant certiorari in this case because the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal is in conflict with Doyle v. Ohio, supra. Indeed, the conflict with Doyle seems sufficiently clear to me to warrant summary reversal of petitioner’s conviction.