Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yavorcik (Slip Opinion)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, “if ‘standing alone, [the comment] was ‘so subtle and so brief that [it] did not ‘naturally and necessarily’ emphasize defendant’s testimonial silence[,]’” the comment is not a direct comment on the right to remain silent
• holding the State violated the defendant’s right to silence when it commented on the defendant ending the interview as evidence of guilt
• prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant’s prearrest silence when the defendant 5 terminated a police interview
• prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant’s prearrest silence when the defendant terminated a police interview
• “[N]o constitutional protection is violated if a defendant testifies at trial and is impeached for remaining silent before arrest and before the State’s issuance of Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)] warnings.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).