Document: 493 U.S. 307 110 S.Ct. 648 107 L.Ed.2d 676 Darryl JAMES, Petitionerv.ILLINOIS. No. 88-6075. Argued Oct. 3, 1989. Decided Jan. 10, 1990. Syllabus The day after a shooting which left one of group eight boys dead and another seriously injured, police took petitioner James into custody as suspect. James, who then had black curly hair, admitted under questioning that the previous his hair been reddish brown, long, combed straight back, he just dyed curled it in order to change appearance. After was indicted for murder attempted murder, trial court sustained motion suppress statements about fruit an unlawful arrest. At trial, five members testified shooter slicked-back, shoulder-length, they seen several weeks earlier with color style. Each boy identified even though at worn "natural" did not testify defense, but called Henderson, on hair. permitted State introduce James' illegally obtained impeach Henderson's testimony. convicted both counts. Illinois Appellate Court reversed convictions ground exclusionary rule barred admission purpose impeaching defense witness' Supreme reversed, reasoning impeachment exception rule—which permits prosecution evidence defendant's own testimony—should be expanded include testimony other witnesses deter defendant from engaging perjury "by proxy." Held: erred expanding encompass all witnesses. Such expansion would frustrate rather than further purposes underlying rule. truth seeking rationale supporting defendants does apply equal force Court's "perjury by proxy" premise is suspect, since threat criminal far more likely witness intentionally lying defendant, already facing conviction, behalf. Moreover, some chilled calling otherwise offer probative out fear those might make statement sufficient tension tainted allow prosecutor impeachment. Finally, significantly weaken rule's deterrent effect misconduct enhancing expected value evidence, vastly increasing number occasions such could used also, due chilling effect, deterring first place thereby keeping exculpatory jury. exclusion illegal prosecution's case chief provide deterrence protect privacy interests When officers confront opportunities obtain have legally sustain prima facie case, excluding only leave little lose much gain overstepping constitutional limits gathering. Pp. 311-319. 123 Ill.2d 523, 124 Ill.Dec. 35, 528 N.E.2d 723, remanded. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. 320. KENNEDY, dissenting REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR SCALIA, joined, 322. Martin S. Carlson, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Terence M. Madsen respondent. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 proceeding extended this permit evidence. 723 (1988). Finding extension inconsistent balance values our applications rule, we reverse. 2 * On night August 30, 1982, young returning home party were confronted trio demanded money. refused comply, member produced gun fired larger group, killing injuring another. arrived, remaining provided eyewitness accounts event descriptions perpetrators. 3 next evening, two detectives Chicago Police Department 15-year-old suspect shooting. found mother's beauty parlor sitting dryer; when emerged, curly. placing their car, questioned him prior color. He responded back. again later station, stated gone "dyed appearance." App. 11. 4 subsequently murder. Prior moved regarding contending Fourth Amendment violation because lacked probable cause warrantless evidentiary hearing, ruled inadmissible trial. 5 State, each made in-court identification defendant. person responsible "reddish" shoulder length slicked-back "butter" also recalled having parade, time aforementioned however, Despite discrepancy between witnesses' description present appearance, stood firm conviction shots. 6 defense. Jewel friend family. Henderson she taken register high school that, time, black. sought, over objection, means credibility determining suppressed voluntarily, overruled objection. One interrogating reported admissions ultimately sentenced 30 years' imprisonment. 7 appeal, ordered new 153 Ill.App.3d 131, 106 327, 505 1118 (1987). appellate held resulting error harmless. However, reversed. reasoned proxy," ought himself. therefore reinstated. We granted certiorari. 489 1010, 109 1117, 103 180 (1989). II 8 "There no gainsaying arriving fundamental goal legal system." United States v. Havens, 446 620, 626, 100 1912, 1916, 64 559 (1980). But various rules limit government may conduct search promote embraced Framers cherished throughout Nation's history. "Ever its inception, seized has recognized principal mode discouraging lawless conduct. . [W]ithout guarantee against unreasonable searches seizures mere 'form words.' " Terry Ohio, 392 1, 12, 88 1868, 1875, 20 889 (1968), quoting Mapp 367 643, 655, 81 1684, 1691, 1081 (1961). occasional suppression yet long considered necessary cost preserving overriding values: "[T]here nothing realization Constitution sometimes insulates criminality few us all." Arizona Hicks, 480 321, 329, 1149, 1154-55, 94 347 9 This carved exceptions where introduction reliable truthseeking function likelihood admissibility encourage "speculative possibility." Harris New York, 401 222, 225, 91 645-46, 28 (1971).1 prosecutors limited Walder States, 62, 74 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), permitting heroin through undermine claim never possessed narcotics. explained 10 "must free deny elements without giving Government way rebuttal secured it, available chief. Beyond there hardly justification letting affirmatively resort perjurious reliance Government's disability challenge credibility." Id., 65, S.Ct., 356. 11 In supra, Oregon Hass, 420 714, 95 1215, 43 570 (1975), applied using incriminating voluntary elicited Miranda requirements.2 "answers questions put cross-examination are plainly within scope direct examination." U.S., 627, 1916. 12 insisted line cases "evidence government's or otherwise, substantive guilt." 628, 1917.3 believed use defendants' truth-seeking preventing perverting 'into license defense,' id., 1916 (citation omitted), create possibility impermissible will encouraged thereby," Harris, 645, concluded justified covering III 13 balancing approach progeny justifies disagree. Expanding class impeachable alone different incentives affecting behavior law enforcement officers. As result, same extent creation original exception, general Hence, believe proposed 14 previously penalizes committing allowing expose Thus discouraged instance "affirmatively resort[ing] testimony." Walder, leaves truthfully behalf; can jury opening door carefully avoiding any directly contradict thus generally discourages perjured truthful 15 contrast, beneficial effects. First, subsequent behalf offense, Hence frustrated easily find engage suspect.4 16 More significantly, chill presenting best all—through others. Whenever illegally, assess favorable call. Defendants reasonably witnesses, position testimony, need call "reluctant" "hostile" share concern invite contradictory often cannot trust "friendly" subjecting themselves impeachment, simply insufficient care attentiveness. magnified situations must despite opportunity consult prepare them advance. For these reasons, variety contexts "cannot absolutely certain expected." Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 609, 92 1891, 1893, 32 358 (1972).5 evidence.6 17 alters current governing Our clear able "pervert" shield perjury, seems appropriate brandish sword dissuade meaningful Given potential created conceded gains process disclosing offset concomitant loss Thus, force. 18 misconduct. characterized possibility," Law think unlikely decide open inadvertently officers' incentive acquire quite weak. 19 enhance increase used. Defense outnumber testifying defendants, many do if most multiple above, see 315-316, holds greater individual prosecutor's access perjury; place, superiors recognize obtaining stacks deck heavily favor. It possibility" argues result constitutionally acceptable solely still quantum rule.7 Of course, officer particular means, chief, prevent establishing take situations, deterred jeopardizing entire case. (or know obtaining) requiring gathering.8 Narrowing manner, therefore, ability "to compel respect guaranty effectively removing disregard it." Elkins 364 206, 217, 80 1437, 1444, 1669 (1960). So committed protecting people rights during course investigations, inadmissibility remain exception. IV 21 invariably perceived tangibly discrete prosecutions protection future defining precise focus systemic effects ensure liberty arbitrary oppressive succumb inexorable pressure matter how obtained, every recognition reflects careful weighing competing values. Because appreciably adhere drawn cases. 22 Accordingly, hold affirming court's judgment remanded proceedings opinion. 23 so ordered. 24 concurring. 25 While I join comments dissent prompt postscript. answers wrong question states "[t]he interest bit strong cases." Post, 324. self-evident. always function. proper question, whether sufficiently advance overcome With issue, overestimates benefit bent exaggerates injury unlawfully causes 26 "contested trials," 326, urge win unfortunately lead side overstate properly observes, dishonest procure false tempered availability witness. Ante, 314. A faces calculus whose mean difference acquittal prison sentence. hard before accepting invitation knowingly contradicted State's ignores "hard reality," presuming immunized 27 assumes or, least, faulty recollection unwilling entertain assumption issue involves allegedly heard An provides foundation oral physical influenced effective recollection. 100-percent credence word officer's categorically state "the himself revealed false," 324, "James said red," n. 2, information presented "known untrue," 327. That warranted opposite guilty verdict supported eyewitnesses, highly characterizations accurate. dissenters rely conclusion harmless, 330, seem obviate discredit Were corroborated, surely improper presume—as do—that conflict should necessarily resolved favor decision jurors "positively misled." 29 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA join, dissenting. To deprive acquired tolerable Implementation requires draw lines today's grants broad immunity whatever produce mouth friendly Unless petitioner's told, flout Amendment, accused unable exaggerated view leads drastic remedy: learn undoubted value. cautious available, retains protections safeguards 31 precedents establish pursuing important outweighs achieve. See, e.g., Krull, 340, 347-348, 1160, 1165-1166, (1987); Leon, 468 897, 906-907, 104 3405, 3411-3412, 82 677 (1984); Stone Powell, 428 465, 486-489, 96 3037, 3048-3050, 49 1067 (1976); Calandra, 414 338, 613, 619-620, 38 561 (1974). attempt advantage outright contradiction excluded facts, secure knowledge inconsistency 35 years ago: "It thing say affirmative obtained. turn method possession advantage, untruths. Weeks [v. 232 383, 34 341, 58 652 (1914),] doctrine perversion Amendment." 356, (1954). 33 Under rationale, consistent subject contradicting excluded. principle applies itself (1980), law, reliable, (1975); (1971). Petitioner confined "impeachment" involve "impeachment self-contradiction." Brief 13. theory, seems, introduced opposition impeaches itself; falsity irrelevant. bear reading. charged accomplice smuggling codefendant hid drugs T-shirt constructed special pockets. pockets patches cut luggage search. denied T-shirts, T-shirt, outset, upheld admission. See 623, 1914-15, 1917. There "self-contradiction" involved, based jury's belief fact altered smuggling, belonged true unrelated investigation drug. sum, show contrary subjects agree majority resolution depends informs jurisprudence. weigh 'likelihood costs withholding process.' 312, (quoting 347, 1166). adopts sweeping rebutted excludable does. 36 allowed part Here knew well stand accused's personal real doubt minds concerning identifications persons accused. triers kept dark positively misled. harm majority's testified. natural skeptical self-serving Testimony independent deceive. And impunity, rest ineffective artificial viewed weakness state's Jurors assume proof false, known. suffer appear bolster falsehood silence. 37 whole putting me too speculative justify here announced. No restriction results If "tension evidence," ante, 315, opened suppression, fears justified. context conflict, where, reason, true.1 Also missing analysis almost false. apparent protected truthtelling mind strikes sanguine support acceptance controls reality contested trials. expresses common sense saying presentation "penalizes perjury." 39 cases, ironclad regardless motives, misused perjure. Even testifies good faith, lawyer, facts. Indeed, difficult imagine attorney's reason asking expect her cast contained (suppressed) statement. 40 suggestion 314 (opinion J.); 320-321 J.), realistic. Dunn 442 100, 108, 99 2190, 2195, 60 743 (1979) (describing "exceptionally difficult"). heightened requirement making sustain. People Alkire, 321 Ill. 28, 151 N.E. 518 (1926); Harrod, 140 96, 490, 488 316 (1986). Where family convict idle one. 41 damage caused great merely falsity, issue. alternative endorsement judicial conducted known untrue. Suppressed consist either Both degree reliability, represent falsehoods jury.2 42 beyond control supported. sympathetic here, assure volunteer knows content consultation limited, attorney elicit truly neutral hostile accused, danger concerns carry weight cross-examination. situation perhaps Rather wait consider similar measures, opts wooden immunizing rebuttal, regard behest perjured. 44 "disregard rights," officers, 319, fears. argument raised area law. 633-634, 1919-1920 (BRENNAN, dissenting); 725, 1222 232, 649 dissenting). date rejected it. Now specter appears premised single slip tongue disposal. so, conducting understandable. if, speculates, temptation seize "much time" gathering guilt reasonable Again, disagree predictions. 45 unrealistic turns calculation possibilities officer, unschooled suffice survive following identity ultimate defendant.3 certainly anything less what be. What arrest (which crucial securing conviction) lost assessments marginal applicable here. "Assuming proscribed conduct, flows unavailable chief." 645. 46 witness, offense. Her statement, not, offered unequivocal was. red shootings. Havens compelled reasoning. 47 prosecution, true, went shop "change suggest intention evade capture disguise. goes rebut raises expressed Nonetheless, overwhelming including eyewitnesses. circumstances, additional 48 misled flat seized, 'perverted risk confrontation utterances.' 226, 646). proxy. affirm 1165-66, (1987) (when evaluating "has examined achieved, weighed process"); 908-913, 3412-15, (1984) (discussing approach). Certain Members designed courts becoming parties admitting 931-938, 3431-3435 joined 976-978, 3454-3455 (STEVENS, part). Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966). 721, 1220, (1975) ("[T]rial instructed attributed [defendant] passing guilt"); 223, 644-45, (1971) (same); 64, 355-56, (1954) (same). concedes, must, "of recollection" opposed intentional lying. 326. assuming (as detective's testimony) indeed record suggests honestly (even erroneous) perception events. These reasons party's led ago abandonment common-law automatically "vouches for" hence inexorably bound say. Fed.Rule Evid. 607 ("The attacked party, him"); 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 899, 655 (J. Chadbourn rev.1970) ("[E]very experienced lawyer required happen facts trustworthiness guarantee. upon surprised given attorney" omitted)); cf. Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 93 1038, 297 (1973) (state precluding violated process). Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 426, 984, 993, 128 (1976) (holding immune damages liability observing "veracity frequently testify. hampered exercising liability, [they refrain hence] relevant evidence"); 446, 1002 (WHITE, judgment) ("[O]ne suits knowing detrimental [truth-seeking] process—prosecutors withhold questionable valuable court"). Apparently minimize concern, suggested "purposely defendant." 537, 41, 729 purport determine presented" shooting, omission clearly highlights difficulty 'purposely presented' Amicus Curiae 21, 5. inherent subjectivity test, confident actually inadvertent surprising limitation meaningfully blunt imposed examination, recognizing feel insecure avoid triggering responding prosecutor. salient distinction context, (1980) (rejecting testimony), palpably inhibit embraces "direct conflict" 325. inquiry "commonplace" 325, 1. distinguishing "direct" "indirect" conflicts predictable. authority relies define observes "[s]uch possible exists." Wigmore 1040, 1048. ex ante uncertainty pose trigger 18-22. detained eyewitnesses probably precluded Defining task judges perform difficulty, type familiar example, Federal Rule 801(d)(1) oath hearsay declarant's Likewise, 613(b) contemplates extrinsic "prior statement." Trial day, formulations principles involved commonplace. described true. suffices; nor absolute oppositeness essential; required." 1040 rev.1970). handling illustration. basis arrived p.m., specific time. sought established alibi occurred around p.m. rebuttal. STEVENS takes "assumption" reliable. 321. credulous describe remembered, emerged dryer curlers involving govern, reliability testimonial. event, credibility. Perhaps My point factfinder chance so. approach, which, said, impression conveyed majority, 8, arresting name anonymous tip. They weapon, petitioner, calculated assessment ignore finds and, fact, pure speculation.

Category: 0