Document: 365 U.S. 301 81 S.Ct. 653 5 L.Ed.2d 670 Theodore GREEN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Nos. 70 and 179. Argued Jan. 10, 1961. Decided Feb. 27, Rehearing Denied April 17, See 890, 1024. Mr. James Vorenberg, Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Robert Kramer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Judgment of the Court opinion Justice FRANKFURTER, joined by CLARK, HARLAN WHITTAKER, announced HARLAN. 1 Defendant, petitioner here, in 1952 was convicted United States District Massachusetts on a three-count indictment charging him with (1) entering bank intent to commit felony, violation 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), U.S.C.A. 2113(a); (2) robbing bank, also 2113(a), (3) assaulting or putting jeopardy lives persons use dangerous weapon while committing robbery, 2113(d), 2113(d). Five days later, after defendant's counsel had completed motions arrest judgment new trial, district judge asked, 'Did you want say something?' whereupon at some length invoked trial judge's discretionary leniency. The age, family status, physical condition were mentioned, as fact that he then serving sentence state penitentiary which would delay time from his federal punishment run. Thereupon judge, presumably relying upon presentence probation report, observed defendant hardened criminal, past committed other armed robberies, there no warrant believe rehabilitation possible. He pronounced follows: 2 'Theodore Green, orders this be sentenced 'On Count 20 years, imprisoned 3 period 25 said prison run concurrent begin your release are now receiving under order State Court.' Subsequently, permitted bring appeal forma pauperis dismissed Appeals 'for diligent prosecution.' In two later actions, unsuccessfully brought proceedings 28 2255, vacate sentence. These cases, here consolidated, arise out separate actions brought, seven years conviction, Rule 35 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, U.S.C.A., an effort set aside asserts illegal. No. 70, claims failure inquire if anything own behalf prior sentencing rendered subsequent illegal 32(a).1 179, questions legality twenty-five-year aggravated robbery2 when immediately its imposition imposed twenty-year another count same offense without elements aggravation. 4 If 32(a) constitutes inflexible requirement specifically address defendant, e.g., 'Do you, have before I pass sentence?' what transpired present case falls short requirement, even assuming inadequacy circumstances us constitute error per se rendering design did not promulgation; legal provenance common-law right allocution. As early 1689, it recognized court's ask required reversal. Anonymous, Mod. 265, 266, 87 Eng.Rep. 175 (K.B.). Taken context history, can little doubt drafters intended personally afforded opportunity speak We unmindful relevant major changes evolved criminal procedure since seventeenth century—the sharp decrease number crimes punishable death, testify behalf, counsel. But we see reason why procedural rule should limited arose reasons protects remain. None these modern innovations lessens need personally, court plea mitigation. most persuasive may able might, halting eloquence, himself. buttressed conclusion explicitly affords rights: 'to make statement behalf,' any information mitigation punishment.' therefore reject Government's contention merely affording fulfills dual role 32(a). Taylor v. States, 9 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 703. 6 However, do read record denied entitled him. single pertinent sentence—the question something?'—may well been directed A record, certainly unlike play, is unaccompanied stage directions tell significant cast eye nod head. It himself sufficiently apprised chose exercise through Especially warranted has raised claim occurrence. failed meet burden showing accorded personal guarantees, find 7 avoid litigation arising ambiguous records determine whether think problem be, readily taken realm controversy. This easily accomplished. Trial judges should, matter good judicial administration, unambiguously themselves defendant. Hereafter leave room issued invitation sentencing. 8 179 contends because twenty robbery 2, proceeded twenty-five version crime. counts charge offenses, power expired five remitted petitioner's Government concedes offense, Holiday Johnston, 313 342, 349, 550, 61 1015, 1017, 85 L.Ed. 1392, every indication view. jury stated: 10 'The third different type count. That offense. will manner handle * *. count, repeat, aggravation second bank.' 11 Although technically correct sentences both counts, remedy seeks does follow. where passed stating alternative means one offense; rather, involved additional characteristics made one—namely, life weapon. Plainly enough, intention impose maximum formal defect vitiate considered judgment.3 12 Affirmed. 13 STEWART, concurring. 14 join affirming judgments. seem me clearly require volunteer statement, lawyer side who speaks fully behalf. better practice assure express himself, addition say. apply such prospectively, our supervisory capacity. Couch 98 U.S.App.D.C. 292, 235 519. 15 BLACK, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 16 agree makes mandatory imposing afford make, person counsel, presenting wishes too governing determining 'whether personally,' wholly artificial regard having absence specific defendant.1 very essence ancient called 'allocution' FRANKFURTER recognizes underlying always judge.2 17 shows opportunity, cause accordance 35, sent back resentencing compliance refuses take course, 'we opportunity' talk about apparently rests view deemed subject "Did counsel.' goes imply maybe asked 'you' nodded head direction, saw nod, 'may On chain perhaps possible, but purely imaginary happenings, plus seemingly irrelevant 'raised occurrence,' 'has illegal.' careful examination reveals utter implausibility imaginative suggested additions transcript. bare follows lengthy covering three printed pages codefendant arguing motion granted weakness evidence, inconsistencies testimony, lack credibility government witness. colloquy four preceding likewise touch Even assumed might so thoughtless unspecific layman point proceedings, seriously believed understood inviting mitigating factors direction asking Moreover, answer 'Yes, sir' succeeding came (who speaker). obvious implication admitted twice brief case: addressed himself.3 19 am forced conclude actual holding mean less particular than declared least defendants tried future. Judges warned hereafter their must 'defendant sentencing.' This, think, meaning adopted, just like all others it. either fears conjured up prisoners raise event decision favor. Bad men, law, shown obligation direct proper steps wrong done, character possible effect challenge they 'at time' 35. relevance all, country's jails more imperative grant appropriate relief rather search obviously dubious excuse deny claim. understand necessary legally defeat prisoner's invoking appears doctrine proof. What, ask, show imposed? Is proof beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance overwhelming weight what? suppose FRANKFURTER'S duty standard neither pointed finger, nor incumbent though me, admission factual occurrence, fair inference 'significant head,' toward responded nothing. Yet defeated overcome inference, basis logic expressly disclaimed case. 21 language jibe harsh result reached refusing accord benefit points out, embodies English-speaking world centuries more, based properly says belief that, himself.' highly prized sound long deserves rigorously enforced Court, praised resounding glittering generalities calculated soften blow nonenforcement. 22 remand resentence part provides: 'Before shall 'Whoever, committing, attempting commit, defined subsections (a) (b) section, assaults person, puts device, fined $10,000 both.' Petitioner further complains improper 3. encompass could attacking challenges involve itself. 'After being convicted, usually crushed hesitate demands lest increased punishment. (Rule 32(a)) contemplates demand, clearly, necessity demand rights court.' Mixon 214 364, 366 (Rives, J., concurring). An extensive detailed review English American common law statutory cases led author following sentence: 'Today, always, allocution authoritative prisoner stands bar sentence.' Barrett, Allocution, Mo.L.Rev. 115, 232, 254. '* (R. pp. 4—18). Then defense wanted something. response, spoke leniency 18—19).' Brief p. 11. (Emphasis supplied.) sentencing, counsel: something?" 31.

Category: 0