Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

The questioning inferred that the defendmt's testbny was the prduct of
krpropr influences by defense mm~l (T, 1963, 1966, 1977)
The r2ght of a defendant in a csirninal prosecution to have the effective
assistance of counsel is absolute and is required at every essmtial step of
the procedhgs. Gideon v. Wainwight, 372 U.S. 335, (1963); Well v. Alabama,
287 U,S, 45, (1932), This right to cowrsel includes the right of the defendant
to consult with counsel during a recess in his cross-examination, no matter haw
brief: the recess.
State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1977); Was v. - U.S., 425 U.S. 80,
(1976).
Bova v. State, 410 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1982); Stripling v.
In the instant case, the prosecutor brought out the fact that counsel had
consulted with the defendant during the recess in an effort to infer kpropriety
on the part of defense counsel to irpsach the defendant.
The prosecution
justified the questioning because, "He's just like any other witness when he's
on the witness standq1. (T, 1965). This notion that a defendant in a criminal
case is a witness like any other person when he takes the stand is patently
erroneous. Stripling, supra; Geders, supra; - Bova, supra.
It is well settled that a defendant my not be cross-examined about is
assertion of his Fifth Awndmsnt right to ramin silent at any stage when that
right is protected.
v. State, 360 So. 2d 760 (Fla, 1978); Bennett -- v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.
1975).
Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1982); W illinsky
Likewise, &~XI an accused requests the advise of counsel after king
given Miranda warnings, the fact that hb asserted his right to counsel may not
be used against him in Cross-eXamination or rebuttal.
2d 496 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976); Wcia v. State, P 351
1977); Burwick v. State, 408 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st D.C,A. 1982).
Zkee v. State, 330 So.
So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.