A man freely chats with cops about his involvement in a riverside gunfight, admitting that he fired shots during the attack. Two years later, at trial, he claims that his participation was under duress; the prosecutor reminds the jury that this defense is a "brand-new story" told for the first time at trial. The man is convicted. Tenth Circuit: And that's a Doyle violation. Can't use his post-arrest silence about duress (even though it was rather selective silence given that he, um, confessed to the shooting) to suggest an inference of guilt. “In questioning Mr. Ward based on his partial silence, the government unfairly challenged his credibility based on his exercise of the right to remain silent.” Not good. Convictions vacated and remanded.
The Federal Public Defender represents Ward.
The case is United States v. Ward, No. 23-07088 (10th Cir. May 6, 2025).