Document: 488 U.S. 227 109 S.Ct. 480 102 L.Ed.2d 513 James OLDENv.KENTUCKY. No. 88-5223. Dec. 12, 1988. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner Olden and his friend Charlie Ray Harris, both of whom are black, were indicted for kidnaping, rape, forcible sodomy. The victim the alleged crimes, Starla Matthews, a young white woman, gave following account at trial: She friend, Regina Patton, had driven to Princeton, Kentucky, exchange Christmas gifts with Bill Russell, petitioner's half brother. After meeting Russell local car wash exchanging presents him, Matthews Patton stopped in J.R.'s, "boot-legging joint" serving predominantly black clientele, use restroom. consumed several glasses beer. As bar became more crowded, she increasingly nervous because only people there. When refused leave, sat separate table, hoping demonstrate her that was upset. time passed, however, lost track somewhat intoxicated. petitioner told departed been accident, left Harris find out what happened. Harris' another location, where, threatening knife, raped sodomized her. assisted by holding arms. Later, dump, where two other men joined group. There, once again. At request, then dropped off vicinity Russell's house. 2 On cross-examination, counsel focused on number inconsistencies Matthews' various accounts crime. originally police four men. claimed Harris. trial, contended sole rapist. Further, while testified trial threatened not previously armed. 3 who also appeared as State's witness, evening question he heard noise outside home and, when went investigate, saw get car. immediately just 4 asserted defense consent. According their testimony, propositioned about leave bar, engaged sexual acts behind tavern. Afterwards, suggestion, petitioner, search cocaine. they discovered seller home, asked drive dump so could have sex complied. Later evening, picked up men, Richard Hickey Chris Taylor, drove an establishment called Alley. in, leaving returned, ride store off, home. 5 Taylor corroborated defendants' evening. While acknowledged group later than rape occurred, did appear further approached him earlier J.R.'s looking man sex. An independent witness seen Big O's question, policeman time, alert, made no attempt signal assistance. 6 Although married living incident, apparently involved extramarital relationship. By together, having separated from respective spouses. Petitioner's theory case concocted story protect relationship would grown suspicious upon seeing disembark In order motive lie, it crucial, contended, be allowed introduce evidence current cohabitation. Over vehement objections, court nonetheless granted prosecutor's motion limine keep all arrangement jury. Moreover, attempted cross-examine arrangements, after during direct examination mother, sustained objection. 7 Based admitted jury acquitted being either principal or accomplice any charged offenses. likewise kidnaping rape. However, puzzling turn events, convicted alone He sentenced 10 years' imprisonment. 8 appealed, asserting, inter alia, court's refusal allow impeach testimony introducing supporting lie deprived Sixth Amendment right confront witnesses against him. Kentucky Court Appeals upheld conviction. 86-CR-006 (May 11, 1988). specifically held together barred shield law. Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 510.145 (Michie 1985). relevant case. But held, nonetheless, properly excluded "its probative value [was] outweighed its possibility prejudice." App. Pet. Cert. A6. way explanation, stated: "[T]here undisputed facts race; black. For into may created extreme prejudice Matthews." Judge Clayton, dissented but address evidentiary issue, reversed conviction believed jury's verdicts "manifestly inconsistent," found too incredible provide sufficient uphold verdict. Id., A7. 9 failed accord proper weight "to confronted him." That right, incorporated Fourteenth therefore available state proceedings, Pointer v. Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 13 923 (1965), includes conduct reasonable cross-examination. Davis Alaska, 415 308, 315-316, 94 1105, 1109-10, 39 347 (1974). we observed that, subject "the broad discretion judge preclude repetitive unduly harassing interrogation . ., cross-examiner has traditionally impeach, i.e., discredit, witness." 316, S.Ct., 1110. We emphasized exposure witness' motivation testifying is important function constitutionally protected cross-examination." 316-317, 1110, citing Greene McElroy, 360 474, 496, 79 1400, 1413, 1377 (1959). Recently, Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 106 1431, 89 674 (1986), reaffirmed Davis, "a criminal defendant states violation Confrontation Clause showing prohibited engaging otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed show prototypical form bias part thereby 'to expose which jurors appropriately draw inferences relating reliability witness.' " U.S., 680, 1436, quoting supra, 318, 1111. 11 instant case, consistently consensual Matthews—out fear jeopardizing lied continued since. It plain us "[a] might received significantly different impression [the witness'] credibility [defense counsel] permitted pursue proposed line 1436. 12 dispute, indeed acknowledged, relevance impeachment evidence. Nonetheless, without acknowledging significance of, even adverting to, constitutional confrontation, effective danger revealing interracial may, course, impose limits counsel's inquiry potential prosecution take such factors "harassment, prejudice, confusion issues, safety, [would be] marginally relevant," 679, 1435, limitation here beyond reason. Speculation effect jurors' racial biases cannot justify exclusion strong falsity testimony. improper denial defendant's opportunity bias, like errors, Chapman [v. California, 386 18, 87 824, 17 705 (1967) ] harmless-error analysis." 684, 1438. Thus 14 "The correct whether, assuming damaging fully realized, reviewing say error harmless doubt. 15 Whether particular depends host factors, readily accessible courts. These include importance prosecution's whether cumulative, presence absence corroborating contradicting material points, extent permitted, overall strength case." Ibid. 16 Here, central, Her story, directly contradicted largely derivative whose impartiality impugned revelation Matthews. Finally, demonstrated graphically verdicts, squared crime, Clayton's dissenting opinion below, far overwhelming. sum, considering Arsdall within context this impossible conclude "beyond doubt" restriction confrontation harmless. proceed forma pauperis petition certiorari granted, judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 18 ordered. 19 Justice MARSHALL, dissenting. 20 I continue believe summary dispositions deprive litigants fair merits create significant risk rendering erroneous ill-advised decision confuse lower See Pennsylvania Bruder, 9, 205, 207, 172 (1988) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Rhodes Stewart, 1, 4, 202, 204, Buchanan Stanships, Inc., 485 265, 269, 108 1130, 1132, 99 289 Commissioner McCoy, 484 3, 7, 217, 219, 98 (1987) dissenting). dissent Court's today reverse summarily below.

Category: 0