Clement Reynolds v. Maryland

I. Was Petitioner denied Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment and the protections against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and Miranda by the admission of his custodial statement taken by a police officer who intentionally and repeatedly ignored Petitioner’s invocation of his right to remain silent under Miranda where the record demonstrates that the impermissible police conduct was a deliberate and a routine interrogation tactic employed by police officers who were “encouraged” by this Court’s holding in Harris v. New York permitting the use of Miranda violative statements for impeachment and where the police officer knew that any postinvocation statements would be able to be used to chill Petitioner’s decision as to whether to testify at his trial, thus calling into question this Court’s belief in Harris that it was only a “speculative possibility that impermissible police conduct will be encouraged” if Miranda violative statements were permitted to be used for impeachment? II. Was Petitioner denied Due Process of Law when the trial court permitted the prosecutor to question Petitioner about “what he did not tell the police” about his alibi defense, even though the omissions were a result of Petitioner’s post-arrest, post-Miranda invocation of silence and were not inconsistent with his trial testimony?