Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Fullilove, 389 So. 2d 1282.

59 citing documents.

State v. Dunbar 483 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. O'NEAL 478 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Jones 474 So. 2d 919 La. 1985
State v. Sprinkle 439 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
the Court noted: The purpose behind the rule embodied in article 770(3) is to prevent attention from being drawn to the fact that the defendant has not testified in his own behalf.
State v. Burkhalter 428 So. 2d 449 La. 1983
-84 (La.1980): This rule safeguards a defendant from unfavorable inferences which might otherwise be drawn from his silence, thereby implementing the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
State v. Johnson 426 So. 2d 95 La. 1983
However, that "[w]hen the remark directly points out that the defendant has not testified, it is irrelevant whether the prosecutor intended the jury to draw unfavorable inferences from the defendant's silence."
State v. Harvill 403 So. 2d 706 La. 1981
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Berry 391 So. 2d 406 La. 1980
State v. Curry 390 So. 2d 506 La. 1980