Comparative Dimensions of Prohibition of Inference from the Accused’s Silence in Iran and USA Criminal Law and its Courts Jurisprudence

Accused’s silence in criminal law is not evidence and proof of crime or inference. However, accused’s silence and inference of crime in USA criminal courts’ jurisprudence create conditions that ultimately end to accused detriment. This situation is contrary to requirements of criminal law and Iran criminal courts’ jurisprudence. In this respect, examining dimensions of permissible or prohibitive view of inference from accused’s silence in criminal law and jurisprudence are important to reply research question. What are status of inference from accused’s silence in Iran and USA criminal law and its jurisprudence? Investigation findings show that accused’s silence was identified in Iran criminal law during the judicial official interrogation phase, while it is for protecting accused against police interrogation. This situation is contrary to USA criminal law, which has identified the accused’s silence during police interrogation. Second, accused’s silence in Iran criminal law and its jurisprudence is a manifestation of accused’s defense rights and is not inference of commission of crime. This situation is similar to USA criminal law, but USA jurisprudence does not follow consequences of accused’s silence when he/she is not in police custody. However, accused’s silence application prevents separation two stages of accused detention and before that in order to enjoy or be deprived of right of silence’s privileges. In this respect, inference of crime from accused’s silence before his/her custody in USA criminal courts’ jurisprudence is contrary to fair criminal trial’s standards.