N. 202. Argued March 9, 1965. Decided April 28, 1965. Facts: In 1964 Edward Dean Griffin was brought before a court of law, convicted, and tried for the crime of murder in the first degree. Griffin had been invited to the apartment of Essie Hodson and her boyfriend Eddie Seay. After all three had gone to bed, Seay awoke to find Griffin and Hodson in distress. Hodson claimed that Griffin had tried to force her to have unwanted sex. Seay locked Griffin out of the apartment. However, Griffin broke in again and hit Seay in the head. Seay went to a nearby bar for help and when he returned neither Hodson nor Griffin were there. The next morning, a witness saw Griffin climbing out of a large trash can in a nearby alley and noticed Griffin adjusting his pants. The witness found Essie Hodson in the garbage can. He was bleeding and in shock. Hodson died the next day at a local hospital from injuries sustained from the violent attack. Griffin was tried for the first-degree murder of Essie Hodson. During the trial, Griffin refused to take the stand and testify. Both the judge and the district attorney commented on Griffin's silence to the jury by stating, "With respect to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant could reasonably be expected to deny or explain away from facts within his knowledge, if does not testify or if, although he testifies, he fails to deny or explain such evidence, the jury may regard such omission as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as indicating that among the conclusions which may reasonably be drawn from it are those unfavorable to the accused are the most likely." many important changes to American law and established standards for the right to due process. The Supreme Court had already established by law that the accused must have the right to remain silent during judicial proceedings, but is now enforcing it. Judge Douglas ruled that negative implications against a defendant would amount to penalizing him for exercising his rights, and that doesn't hold up. The case demonstrated to American citizens that the Supreme Court was intent on giving every person before the court a fair trial. He also demonstrated to potential jurors that if a defendant remains silent during the trial it only means that he is exercising his rights. It is not a proclamation of knowledge of one's rights and their exercise rather than of one's guilt. This precedent has never been more evident to the public.