Document: 459 U.S. 422 103 S.Ct. 843 74 L.Ed.2d 646 R.C. MARSHALL, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Petitionerv.Robert LONBERGER No. 81-420. Argued Oct. 5, 1982. Decided Feb. 22, 1983. Syllabus In an application in a federal court by state prisoner for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) establishes presumption correctness "a determination after hearing on the merits factual issue, made State competent jurisdiction proceeding to which applicant and . were parties, evidenced written finding, opinion, or other reliable adequate indicia." An exception this occurs where court, reviewing state-court record, concludes that court's finding "is not fairly supported record." Respondent was convicted murder at jury trial court. At trial, prosecution sought prove "specification," purposes obtaining death penalty against respondent. There admitted into evidence, be considered only connection with specification, copy Illinois indictment, so-called "conviction statement," transcript respondent pleaded guilty charges indictment. Before admitting such conducted determine whether respondent's plea charge knowing voluntary. On review records upon testimony as his recollection proceedings, held had intelligently voluntarily entered Upholding conviction, Court Appeals specification based prior conviction adequately proved did err ruling voluntary should submitted jury. Subsequently, brought corpus Federal District Court, denied relief. The United States reversed, holding previous invalid its admission evidence rendered ensuing unconstitutional. noting no express concerning credibility witness, credited hearing, absent contrary State. Held: deprive any right. Pp. 430-439. (a) Whether Appeals' reassessment effect undertaken because failure make findings felt it assess itself weight have been accorded erroneously applied "fairly record" standard enunciated 2254(d). reliance fact produced is wide mark deciding are record. Section gives courts license redetermine witnesses whose demeanor has observed but them. 432-436. (b) must presumed informed, either lawyers one presentencing he indicted Illinois. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 637, 96 2253, 49 108. Applying determinations arising from proceedings within meaning 2254(d), cannot accept conclusion constitutional those terms. 436-438. (c) Because valid, case controlled Spencer Texas, 385 554, 87 648, 17 606, reaffirmed. Due Process Clause does permit engage finely tuned wisdom evidentiary rules. instructed consider determining proved, "crucial assumption" system juries will obey their instructions. Moreover, recognized common law, unfairness resulting convictions generally balanced probative value. 438-439, n. 6. 651 F.2d 447, reversed. Richard David Drake, Columbus, Ohio, petitioner. John Czarnecki, Toledo, Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 issue here Fourteenth Amendment requires vacation conviction. Sixth Circuit, granted petition 635 1189, did. felony charge, offered under Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 89 1709, 23 274 (1969). It went hold unconstitutional Court's decision Burgett 389 109, 88 258, 19 319 (1967). claims exceeded authority, our Sumner Mata, 449 539, 101 764, 66 722 (1981), concluding invalid. also contends even if warranted so concluding, render constitutionally infirm. We certiorari consider, inter alia, interrelationship between supra, 108 (1976). 2 * apparently dispute respect operative facts led indictment Charita Lanier evening January 29, 1975. brutally murdered living room her home during evening; blood stains kitchen, victim's partially clothed body found freezer. autopsy revealed victim bled throat slashed, bent, blood-stained knife near scene crime identified weapon. clothing torn sperm detected vaginal canal. 3 morning murder, children told police respondent, Robert Lonberger, evening. After sent upstairs bedroom, they heard mother scream. When there response questions, older child left bedroom downstairs. lights out when attempted turn them grabbed hand; ordered back bed. A pack cigarettes brand house articles discovered possession. 4 grand two counts "aggravated murder." first count charged "prior calculation design," violation Rev.Code 2903.01(A) (1975). second while committing rape, 2903.01(B) (1975).1 Both aggravated included described below, alleged previously "offense gist purposeful killing attempt kill another." 2929.04(A)(5) (1975).2 5 pled charges, introducing record Circuit Cook County, introduction focus objection part since time, central role litigation, we find desirable describe some detail before relating 6 fair say time until present opposing parties never agreed historical surrounding acceptance returned Illinois, three years tried charge. forming basis certified called County occurring guilty. 7 These documents show May, 1971 four counts: battery Dorothy Maxwell, deadly weapon intentionally knowingly attempting Maxwell cutting knife, Wendtian prepared authenticated recited pertinent "AGGRAVATED BATTERY, ETC.," March 10, 1972, withdrew earlier guilty, "[t]hat having fully explained Defendant entry said PLEA OF GUILTY, consequences entering defendant still persisted GUILTY manner form cause." JA-5. third colloquy sentencing JA-6-15. contains following relevant exchanges judge, attorney, prosecuting attorney shown open court: 8 "The Court: words, you pleading August 25, 1968, commit offense same date correct? 9 Defendant: Yes, sir. 10 And 11 That what to, sir? 12 understand 13 waiving your right jury? 14 Yes. 15 16 Understand I could sentence ten twenty. So penitentiary maximum forty years. that? 18 20 What do wish tell me insofar stipulation far concerned? 21 Mr. Randall [prosecuting attorney]: Let stipulated 71-1554, both sufficient law sustain contained therein, involving Lonberger. 22 Xinos [respondent's stipulated." limine offered, took stand himself direct cross examination primarily taken place earlier. findings: 24 finds presented intelligent individual, well experienced criminal processes represented all stages capable counsel every effort safeguard protect rights defendant. Therefore, court." JA-99-100. 25 Evidence subject instruction guilt underlying count. verdict including murder; accordance imposed death. 26 Respondent's appeal successful; matter jury's Lanier, raped well, satisfy rule proof circumstantial evidence. Petn Cert. App. A-38. uphold proved. reversed judgment imposing penalty, directed imposition solely murder. With admissibility said: 27 appellant changed indicated counsel. questioned answered affirmatively 'the [and] .' Appellant further affirmed understood confront witnesses, penalties imposed, motivated plead offer reduced sentence, otherwise threatened promised anything. Through counsel, pretrial instant case, appellant's jury." A-42. II these formed Northern Ohio. relief, "from satisfied ordinary person would nature petitioner guilty." A-31. issue. vacated remanded reconsideration light (1981). Marshall 451 902, 1967, 68 290 remand adhered decision. Lonberger Jago, 447 (6 Cir.1981). again certiorari, 454 1141, 102 998, 71 292 (1982), now reverse Appeals. 29 Appeals, referring 1189 (1980), stated: 30 Lonberger's 1972 demonstrably one, therefore standards. This directly conclusions question validity plea. expressly empowered 2254(d)(8). rationales exercise power. 31 disagreement can briefly stated. effective waiver governed (footnote omitted). U.S., 243 [89 S.Ct., 1712]. plea, works numerous rights, truly 'has incomplete understanding guilt.' 645 [96 2257 13, 108] Accord, Smith O'Grady, 312 329, 334 [61 572, 574, 85 L.Ed. 859] (1941). 32 inadequate aware A-3-4. 33 entirely agree governing Constitution supra; requirements But questions dogged inception inferences regarding properly draw, related questions—are obviously "fact" provisions 34 officer agent thereof indicia. ." One eight exceptions correctness, relied support "on consideration whole 35 treatment courts' findings, failed least major accord "high measure deference," --- ----, 1303, 480 entitled. deference more than simply disagree rejecting determinations. Instead, conclude lacked "fair[ ] support" standard. Following recital states "no explicit witness." A-2. Likewise, wrote: 36 "At pre-trial testified 'copped battery' knowledge charges. prosecutors discredit copies charging attempt.' omitted) ever seen read imply questioning 'attempt' arraignment conversation attorneys. not, evidence." 37 Finally, explicitly footnote State's 38 unsure re-assessment credibility, event, 39 Lavallee Delle Rose, 410 690, 93 1203, 637 (1973), dealt judge likewise defendant's credibility. clear applicable relief believed testimony, grant tantamount think true case. assumption referred Townsend Sain, 372 293, 314-315, 83 745, 757-758, 770, quoted Lavalle 694, 1205, "that trier correct standards leads inevitably similar here. Had insistence advised surely refused allow allowing refusal believe respondent.3 40 discussed above, "the evidence," quite Oregon Medical Society, 343 326, 72 978 (1952), commenting gave bench 41 "As aptly stated New York although rather different substantive nature: 'Face face original holds position advantage appellate judges excluded. doubtful cases power observation often proves most accurate method ascertaining truth. How wrong? saw witnesses. To sophistication sagacity confides duty appraisal.' Boyd Boyd, 252 N.Y. 422, 429 [169 N.E. 632]." 339-340, 698-699, (1952)." 42 greatly doubt Congress, used language "as whole" intended authorize broader authorized appeals itself. While disbelief may affirmative issues bore burden proof, certainly negates favorable drawn 43 Thus, bound assessing contents records, "an Illinois," ante, 428, deducible facts.4 show, certificate" recites duly nonetheless transcript, appears shows "attempt presence, "both [respondent]." Ibid. perhaps arguable conflict recitation reason latter's omission word "murder" "attempt" For assume version, accurate. 44 established sense constitutes accused committed unless received "real notice him, universally requirement due process." 334, 61 859, 645, 2257, observations: 45 "Normally explanation representation defense accused. without representation, appropriate presume routinely explain give being asked admit." 647, 2258, 46 standard5 "voluntary" term. principles lead inexorably intelligence experience justice understood, statements recorded us, presiding inquiring offenses him. evident references "pleading indictment" counsel's sustained Ante, 427-428. Under Henderson, pre-sentencing indicted. Given judge's reference knife" indictment's kill. follows, therefore, argument fail, deprived 606 (1967).6 accordingly 47 Reversed. BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 48 join STEVENS' dissent. write separately emphasize penultimate sentence. See 438 bulk devoted defending (1967), establishing fours held, notwithstanding Spencer, inherently prejudicial admit unconstitutional, uncounseled new offense, regardless purpose introduced limiting instructions given 115, 262.1 50 below concerned themselves exclusively type which, Burgett, him later purpose, curative procedural protections might adopted. ground obtained unconstitutionally, receive pleads renders (1976); completely unreliable, rests indeed elements offense. about petition. 51 REHNQUIST's 420-430, dissent, post, 457, why Circuit's close question. leave considerable doubt. formal statement preserved ETC." 5. admit, knife," answered, "Yes, sir." Id., 8. mentioned possible "attempt." 9. absence more, neither clearly battery. hand, arraigned 52 resolves tension rules derived dictum this, notice, "it 2258. thus holds: 53 "Under 'attempt knife' kill." 437-438. 54 2254(d)(8), required inference informed record.2 But, assuming drew (it so), fails resolve establish that, known necessarily follow knew 55 Testifying claimed bargain whereby sentenced accordingly. He lawyer talked over go lot things just record's sake copping four, agreement." 24; cf. id., 84-85. hard cold hardly incredible face. impeach it, unlike claim see 27-75, address Petn. A-40-42; 429-430. Apart ambiguous nothing doing going forward deal proposed two-to-four prison—two minimum battery3—and specified BATTERY." 56 More importantly, perfectly reasonable, despite mention Since 1958, statutory forbidding convictions—not merely punishments—for single act. People King, Ill.2d 551, 560-566, Ill.Dec. 891, 895-896, 363 N.E.2d 838, 842-843 (1977) (discussing development law); Criminal Code 1961 1-7(m) (current version Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, 5-8-4(a) (1973)). several times vacate defendant, act.4 E.g., ex rel. Walker Pate, 485, 387 (1973); Carter, Ill.App.3d 207, 315 (1974); Peery, 81 Ill.App.2d 372, 377, 225 730 57 battery" "etc." Maxwell. Upon thinking indulging lawyer's well-known penchant redundancy. 58 reached transcript. "Yes" A-42, result consistent Sumner's "presumption correctness," 550-551, 771-772, unimpeached fall short 59 slips rationale beneath flawed valid point, likely learned him.5 Like however, leap makes whatsoever maintain ignore likelihood As matter, ignorant settled then brief seem anything absurd. III 60 simple, unanswerable simple Did actual 1972? factfinder certain particular answer correct. crucial becomes knowing, voluntary, intelligent. mere enough good By dismissing failing difference disregarding manages fit permits below. end Procrustean effort? great principle unique us forbid point were? reaffirm circumstances fundamentally unsound bar zealous prosecutor prosecution, (as STEVENS BLACKMUN show) all? relieve retrial? "certworthy." game seems worth candle. 62 BLACKMUN, 63 dissenting I, too, affirm Circuit. note utter legitimate interest once proffered stipulation. value, nonexistent 64 STEVENS, join, 65 involves determinations: innocent, punishment cases, stages. stage, strict procedure govern order quality admitted, guilt. relaxed; range character authority though extraneous proven. merge highly item evidence: 1968 "intentionally lawful justification." Everyone agrees 1975 Ohio.1 penalty.2 today allowed decided crime. 67 legitimately my difficult acknowledges. requires, believe, re-examination attention prosecutorial tactics disclosed structure analysis area twice constitutionality Texas recidivist statute. procedure, proceeding, long past account innocence current 69 bare majority concluded "fall level tolerate." 569, 656 (Stewart, J., concurring). acknowledged crimes potentiality prejudice." 560, 651. Nevertheless, distinguish trials admissible. 70 noted Delli Paoli States, 352 232, 77 294, 278 (1957), hearsay inadmissible nevertheless jointly declarant, provided evaluating "all joint trials, codefendants multiple offenses, furnish inherent opportunities (on acquittal) influence totally charge." 562, 652. deemed acceptable reasons: "(1) expected proper function, (2) convenience trying person, connected defendants, governmental interest." conceded use prior-crime one-stage thought represent less cogent interest" promoted Paoli. 563, 653. distinction result. 73 Two months analytic involved statute "not arriving verdict." 113, 260. trial. Over dissent members majority,3 reasoned "presumptively void," "inherently unable disregard error 'harmless beyond reasonable doubt' Chapman California, 386 [87 824, 705]." 262. unequivocally rejected notion character. "What Jackson Krulewitch 336 440, 445, 453, 716, 719, 723, 790 (concurring opinion), sensitive conspiracy equally repetitive crimes, 'The naive effects overcome practicing know unmitigated fiction.' " 115 7, 262 7.4 75 Later Term Bruton 391 123, 1620, 476 (1968). majority,5 overruled 126, 1622. stressed ensure Once again, Jackson's opinion. 129, 1624.6 Stewart concurred, kinds "are damaging, suspect, yet discount, jurors trusted minimal logically deserves, whatever give." 138, 1629 (emphasis original). 76 opinions demolished pillars Spencer. Bruton, plainly longer tells so. Spencer' suggestion state's enhancement "less cogent" Paoli, pillar shaky best. pillar. concretely, unfair prejudice justified chose employ. "aggravated," 2929.03, "specification" 2929.04(A), doubt, ibid. "aggravated" rape. included, way allegation 78 moved dismiss citing arguing void involuntary motion, statement." argued words "attempted murder" everything imprisonment, showed battery, etc." 79 introduce specification. bifurcated prevent receiving established. attack woman especially assaulting female knife. wrong jury.7 bifurcate proceeding. 80 stipulate eliminate need offer. reciting details statement. doubt; intercourse However, unfairly contaminated receipt remand, life. 82 retrospect, obvious all. aggravated, produce aggravation justify sending Even reach jury, Fifteen ago, upheld stressing procedures varied widely experimentation progress. 566, 654. Those today. Bifurcated capital throughout nation.8 tenable difficulties administering system. Indeed, employed dramatically unmask preserving procedure—to enhance convict.9 premises arguably implicated dictate 84 take associated increases whenever foreclose challenge Such discussion unproved thereby increasing danger draw impermissible history. 1, supra. adopt intolerable documentary relevance debate. Cf. 652 ("The usually, almost always, kind, presentation inflammatory"). test. refusing insults allegedly purposes, efforts get bifurcated, Yet instead insisted been, reflect each listed suggested prosecutor's naked desire inject complicating prolonging case10 Constitutional 86 accompanying specifications, No statute, Rev. 2929.03 allege aggravating circumstance 2929.03(C). If mitigating circumstances, §§ 2929.03(D) 2929.04 found, impose sentence; mandatory life shown. diminished us. who capable, suggests nationally respected public defender: appeared state, extent impeached oral matters laws states. free regulate own conception policy fairness offends rooted traditions conscience people ranked fundamental." Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 105, 330, 332, 674 (1934). grounds, none withstands analysis. First, "Lonberger's discuss him." This, rejection necessary unjustified doing. Post, 433-434. addition, return somehow operate. change suggest usual vague description proceedings. apparent implication provide information enable faced: indeed, "sufficient fact" "questionable [the presumption] forms essential element crime." Whatever otherwise, obstacle challenging element. reaffirm, guilt-determination stage enhancement. Central finely-tuned rules: "It [decisions Clause] rule-making organ promulgation procedure." 564, principles, permitting pose offend Clause, accompanied remains persuasive; Parker Randolph, 442 62, 73, 99 2132, 2139, 713 (1979) (REHNQUIST, J.), judge. Were so, pointless instruct improperly instructed." Sandstrom Montana, 510, 2450, (1979). crime, seldom, ever, inflammatory "devastating," 74-75, 2139-2140, See, e.g., And, course, considers arise. rest view regarded grossly sort blanket prohibition. fact, ambivalent. Stone, Exclusion Similar Fact Evidence: America, Harv.L.Rev. 988 (1938). Alongside general inadmissible, guilt, Wigmore 194 (3rd ed. 1940), developed broad, vaguely defined exceptions—such intent, identity, malice, motive, plan—whose largely discretion 560-61, 651-652. short, like implicitly value permitted demanding particularly strong justification. Here, careful sound requiring instructions, Parker, put remark Cardozo 674, "does run afoul another fairer wiser surer promise protection bar." Remarking reputation Michelson 335 469, 486, 213, 223, 168 (1948), "We concur courts, textwriters profession much archaic, paradoxical, full compromises compensations irrational side offset poorly counterprivilege other. workable clumsy moderated discretionary controls hands wise pull misshapen stone grotesque upset balance adverse interests rational ediface." willing defer "accumulated judicial experience" expense "abstract logic," 487, 224, arose system, construed require more. broadly written, reconcilable. balancing approach interpreting Amendment's clause, risk alone instructions—did outweigh benefits derive 562-563, 652-653. distinguished situations addition exposing prejudice, compromise specific 564-565, 653-654. vital rights. Furthermore, unreliable benefit advice additional unconstitutionality unreliability tip delicate struck unquestionably law: purpose. contrary, contrary—he length told, 24-25, 85-94 (transcript court). normal applying judge-made "presumption" party rebut meet it. Rule 301; H.R.Rep. 93-1597, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 5-6 (1974) (conference report). rebutted testimony—and not—respondent's showing sufficed created Henderson. most, then, Henderson's create permissible Ill.Rev.Stat. 12-4(e), 1005-8-1(6) Moore, 520, 470, 666 (1978); Jones, 446, 455, 370 1142, 1149 (1977). legislature six-year minimum. 8-4(c)(1), 1005-8-1(3) rested precisely charge: "[O]n 25th, he, attempt, intent 2-3. limited itself, rebutting draws indicating drawn, factors indicate knowledge, argue past, similar, recent White, Wend. 111, 113-114 (NY Sup.Ct.1835) (in possession counterfeit money, improper former conviction); Burr, Fed.Cas. 187, 198 (CC Va.1807) (No. 14,694) (Marshall, C.J.) providing treasonous military expedition Virginia, means Kentucky); King Doaks, Quincy's Mass. Reports 90 (Mass.Sup.Ct.1763) keeping Bawdy House, acts lasciviousness performed became Mistress House); Hampden's Trial, Howell's St.Tr. 1053, 1103 (1684) ("a forgery, let forgeries indicted"). illogical. attractive overwhelm unwarranted Professor explained: natural inevitable tendency tribunal—whether jury—is excessive vicious exhibited, bear too strongly justifying condemnation irrespective 1940). observed: "Not invests closes character, disposition prosecution's case-in-chief. trouble acts, ill name among neighbors, persuasive propensity logical perpetrator inquiry irrelevant; weigh overpersuade prejudge bad deny opportunity defend 475-476, 218-219. statement" asserted Although sufficient, standing alone, assertion inquiry. Harlan, authored dissented joined Black WHITE. 120, 264. Compare Chief Warren's observations, Spencer: "Of course flouts human suppose currently famous phrase, '[t]he 453 [69 790] opinion) (1949). Banmiller, 310 720, 725 (CA3 1962). assessment ambitious empirical study behavior attempted, Kalven & Zeisel, American Jury 127-130, 177-180. "Recognition prior-convictions traditionally commission engrained jurisprudence accused's penal sanctions. possibility generality mask unsavory reputation, consistently except tends something disposition." 575, 659, (1967) (Opinion Warren, C.J.). WHITE's Harlan. weeks argued. law-abiding citizen. discussing admissible, declared: price pay throw entire kept closed vulnerable shields 479, 220. Presaging identifying overlook minimize comprehend instruction,' disturbed refinements judges, reflection, confused, hurried unfamiliar movement unintelligible. apply various subjects; example, admissions co-defendant problems powerless cause irretrievably obscured confused; but, foreclosed confounding line inquiry, net opening up 484-485, 222-223. ironic pluck ostensible always mechanically judges. stated, part: "Now, proving them, week proving, way, today." Trial Transcript 1178-1180. Ohio's country. Columbia (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, West Wisconsin) statutes Three precise categories existence circumstance. Penal Law 125.27(1)(a)(iii) (1975) (see Davis, N.Y.2d 3, 400 N.Y.S.2d 735 371 456 (1977), cert. denied, 435 98 1653, 88, 914, 3143, 1160 (1978)); Vt.Stat.Ann., Tit. 2303(1) (Supp.1982); Wash.Rev.Code 10.95.020 significant "habitual criminal" states, "aggravating circumstances," used. N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law 400.20, .21; Angelucci, 137 Vt. 272, 405 A.2d (1979); Gear, Wash.App. 307, 633 P.2d 930 Thirty-three determined innocence. Ala.Code 13A-5-45 (1982 Supp.); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703B Ark.Stat.Ann. 41-1301 (1977); Cal.Penal Ann. 190.1 (West) Colo.Rev.Stat. 16-11-103, 18-1-105(4) (1978 1982 Conn.Gen.Stat. 53a-46a Del.Code Ann., 11, 4209(b) Fla.Stat. 921.141 Ga.Code 17-10-310 (1982); Idaho 19-2515 ¶ 9-1(d) Ind.Code 35-50-2-9(d) Ky.Rev.Stat. 532.025 La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 905 Md.Ann.Code, 27, 413(a) Miss.Code 99-19-101 Mo.Rev.Stat. 565.006 Mont.Code 46-18-301 (1981); Neb.Rev.Stat. 29-2520 Nev.Rev.Stat. 175.552 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 630:5 (1981 N.J.Stat.Ann. 2C:11-3.c. N.J.Laws, 111; N.M.Stat.Ann. 31-18-14(A) N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000 Okla.Stat., 21, 701.10 Pa.Cons.Stat. 9711 S.C.Code 16-3-20 S.D.Comp.Laws 23A-27A-2 Tenn.Code 39-2404 Tex.Code 37.071 (Vernon) Utah 76-3-207 Va.Code 19.2-264.4 Wyo.Stat. 6-4-101, -102 Only Today, half-bifurcated: together phase, second. (1982). stark contrast gratuitous justification rebuttal opened Michelson, 6, highlights conclusion. resentencing 1977, Supreme denied. resentencing, unpublished order. appealed 1189. rehearing 290, vacating remanding reinstated judgment. 447. granted. 292. six gone litigation close.

Category: 0