Criminal Justice

Brickbat: You Don't Say


A Maryland appellate court has overturned the murder conviction of Michael Maurice Allen Sr., who is serving life in prison for fatally stabbing his girlfriend in 2018. The court found a prosecutor and a judge violated Allen's constitutional right to remain silent during his trial. The prosecutor told jurors that Allen's decision to stop answering a detective's questions about the death indicated he was guilty. The judge overruled an objection by Allen's defense attorney and did not tell jurors to ignore that remark. The appellate court's decision means Allen can be retried.

NEXT: Denver Drops Effort To Criminally Prosecute Pickleball Enthusiast Who Made Small 'X's on City-Owned Gym Floor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So here is, clearly, obviously siding with the GAWD-damned (Government-Almighty's_Wrath_Delivers!-damned) liberal, AntiFa-loving criminal elements! Michael Maurice Allen Sr. is clearly GUILTY as charged! Else, WHY would GAWD have charged him in the first place?!?! (Nincompoops don't even know the simplest Truth... GAWD is PERFECT and infallible!)

    Just shows to go ya, is a bunch of liberal-loving coddlers of AntiFa criminal scum! Only The Donald can save us now!

  2. I'm beginning to suspect that judges might be just attorneys in robes.

    1. What do you call someone who finished last in law school? Your Honor.

    2. Attorneys should be prohibited from serving as judges.

  3. Doesn't anybody watch TV anymore?

    1. No. TV watches us.

  4. Knowing Reason and the general reporting on the issue the questioning probably goes something along the lines of:

    Officer: We found you standing over the body with the murder weapon in hand.
    Allen: Sure.
    Officer: The blood hadn't even coagulated yet and you said nobody had been in the house besides you and your girlfriend for the past several hours right?
    Allen: Whatever.
    Officer: We've got documented proof of close to a dozen knife wounds on the front and back of her body. Do you have anything to say that proves or even suggests that you're innocent?
    Allen: I plead the 5th.
    Officer: Whatever, man. This case is pretty air tight. You're gonna fry unless you give us something else to go on.
    Allen: I want my lawyer.
    Officer: You can have your lawyer, but it's not gonna help if we don't have another avenue... any other avenue.
    Allen: I didn't do it!

    And we're quibbling about whether he was forced to testify against himself.

    1. If the case was anywhere near that clear-cut, why would the prosecutor make such an obvious and egregious violation during the trial? Is it perhaps more plausible that the prosecutor tried to claim that 'silence implies guilt' because the rest of the case was weak?

      What's the old saying -
      When the law is against you, pound the facts.
      When the facts are against you, pound the law.
      When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.

      Sounds like the prosecutor might have been doing some table-pounding.

  5. if England hadn't lost the war it would be much easier for l'Etat to abuse the rules

  6. Had this got to the 5th Circuit, "harmless error, guy's obviously guilty", and then to SCOTUS 5-4 "We must give deference to 5th Circuit".

  7. This sounds like a prosecutor and judge that should both be fired, fined the cost of doing the trial over, and disbarred. There's no way they're unaware of the volumes of precedent concerning the 5th Amendment, so they _knowingly_ ignored the constitution.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.