The Supreme Court has gone to great lengths to prevent jurors from holding defendants’ silence against them. In a trilogy of opinions, the Court concluded that when a defendant refrains from testifying, (1) the prosecutor and judge cannot make adverse comments about that decision; (2) the judge can give a “no adverse inference” instruction even over a defense objection; and (3) the judge must give a “no adverse inference” instruction upon a defense request. Conversely, the Court has never ruled that jurors can impeach their verdict based upon jurors holding a defendant’s silence against him, and lower courts have ruled against recognizing such a right to jury impeachment.

中文翻译：

---

隐含偏见陪审团指令的宪法权利

最高法院竭尽全力阻止陪审员对被告保持沉默。在意见三部曲中，法院得出结论认为，当被告不作证时，（1）检察官和法官不能对该决定作出不利评论；（2）即使有辩方反对，法官也可以作出“不得不利推论”的指示；(3) 法官必须根据辩护请求作出“无不利推论”指示。相反，法院从未裁定陪审员可以基于陪审员对被告保持沉默而弹劾他们的裁决，并且下级法院已裁定不承认这种弹劾陪审团的权利。