Document: 380 U.S. 415 85 S.Ct. 1074 13 L.Ed.2d 934 Jesse Elliott DOUGLAS, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ALABAMA. No. 313. Argued March 9 and 10, 1965. Decided April 5, Charles Cleveland, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner. Paul T. Gish, Jr., Montgomery, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner one Loyd were tried separately in Alabama's Circuit Court on charges assault with intent to murder. was first found guilty. State then called as a witness at petitioner's trial. Because planned appeal his conviction, lawyer, who also represented petitioner, advised rely privilege against self-incrimination not answer any questions. When sworn, lawyer objected, grounds, 'to this appearing stand,' but objection overruled. gave name address but, invoking privilege, refused questions concerning alleged crime. trial judge ruled that could because ordered him answer, persisted refusal.1 thereupon granted Solicitor's motion declare (Loyd) hostile give me cross-examination.' Solicitor produced document said be confession signed by Loyd. Under guise cross-examination refresh Loyd's recollection, purported read from document, pausing after every few sentences ask Loyd, presence jury, 'Did you make statement?' Each time, asserted continued form questioning until entire had been read.2 three law enforcement officers identified embodying made Although marked an exhibit identification, offered evidence. 2 This procedure, argues, violated rights under Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment applied States. statements recited considerable detail circumstances leading surrounding crime; crucial importance, they named person fired shotgun blast which wounded victim.3 jury Appeals Alabama affirmed, 42 Ala.App. 314, 163 So.2d 477. stating inadmissible evidence state '(t)here must confrontation face allow viva voce before jury,' noting 'it might claimed repeated cumulative use have indirect mode getting evidence,' affirmed conviction ground counsel 'stopped objecting' circumstance, 'the failure object waiver.' Ala.App., 329, 332, So.2d, 493, 495. Supreme denied review, 276 Ala. 703, 496. We certiorari, 379 815, 77, 28. reverse. I. 3 decide today is applicable Pointer v. Texas, 400, 1065. Our cases construing clause hold primary interest secured it right cross-examination; adequate opportunity may satisfy even absence physical confrontation. As Mattox United States, 4 'The constitutional provision question prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits * being used prisoner lieu personal examination witness, accused has opportunity, only testing recollection sifting conscience compelling stand order look him, demeanor upon manner he gives testimony whether worthy belief.' 156 237, 242—243, 15 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409. 5 See Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1365, 1397 (3d ed. 1940); Hester, 137 145, 189, 134 S.E. 885, 900 (1926). 6 In case, inability cross-examine plainly Clause. statement constituted direct done so; coupled description shooting, formed link proof both act requisite reading statement, refusals technically testimony, well equivalent jury's mind fact statement; reliance created situation improperly infer true. Slochower Board Higher Education, 350 551, 557—558, 76 637, 640—641, 100 692; States Maloney, 262 F.2d 535, 537 (C.A.2d Cir. 1959). Since inference tested cross-examination. Similarly, cross-examined imputed admitted him. Nor redress denial essential Indeed, their enhanced danger would treat refusal proving truth confession. But since tended show confession, them its genuineness substitute test itself. Motes 178 458, 20 993, 44 1150; cf. Kirby 174 47, 19 574, 43 890. 7 Hence, effective possible if his. However, did do so, relied refuse answer. need properly invoked light conviction. It sufficient purposes deciding claim no suggestion procured see supra, 471, 998; record appears acting entirely own interests doing so. case cannot characterized where prejudice mere minor lapse. clearly bore fundamental part State's are therefore such 'inferences witness' added critical weight prosecution's subject cross-examination, thus unfairly prejudiced defendant.' Namet 373 179, 187, 83 1151, 1155, 10 278, Fletcher 118 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 332 724 (1964). II. 8 agree waived through court stated: 'There ruling sought acted can put error. Here there asked embracing confession.' Yet, colloquy set out margin shows, times jury.4 After second assured already in—plainly implying further unnecessary. grund later same, jury. difficult understand Appeals' conclusion; nevertheless, accepting finding authoritative interpretation law, we follow our consistent holdings adequacy procedural bars assertion federal itself question. Wright Georgia, 284, 289—291, 1240, 1243 1245, 349. determining sufficiency objections general principle ample timely bring error attention enable take appropriate corrective action serve legitimate interests, preserve review here. Davis Wechsler, 263 22, 24, 13, 14, 68 143; Love Griffith, 266 32, 33—34, 45 12, 69 157. No served requiring repetition patently futile objection, thrice rejected, affront beyond repair. Too, read, defense moved exclude it; mistrial new trial; all motions denied. two testified, renewed hearsay references again On these facts, clear brought several points, taken stopping questioning, excusing excluding To extent rule requires each prolonged series, inadequate bar presented. Reversed remanded. HARLAN, concurring result. 11 For reasons stated Court, I 'confrontation' embodied concept liberty. concur judgment reversal premises my result U.S., p. 408, S.Ct., 1070, decided today. 12 STEWART, says what happened 'rights States.' Court's judgment, think deprived liberty without due process violation Fourteenth Amendment. difference view is, course, far more than matter semantics. 409, 1071. sentenced time initially threatened contempt persisting determined your guilt.' proceed citation interrupted sentence years' imprisonment. There 21 occupying seven pages printed record. Two follows: 'We intended shoot trucks got Centreville, when turned went back north passed unable myself point shooting trucks. around south toward Alabama. These stopped truck stop Centreville proceeded about twenty miles. sat alongside highway waiting come us, so thought ought move someone recognized us. saw station wagon looked suspicious off onto 16. drove over route six eight miles pulled behind church. five minutes heard sounded like together going 5. told Douglas drive fine knew car better he. caught above junction 80 proceeding headed meet seat automatic belongs B. F. Jackson loaded buckshot. He rolled down window shot lead heading coming south. Highway left into Greensboro, Greensboro 69, realized wrong direction go Tuscaloosa, up Tuscaloosa.' Did 'Were question, 'How many shots truck?' And 'Only one.' say that?' following occurred: 'Q. Is signature (showing confession)? 'A. I'm sure. will January 20, 1962— 'Mr. Esco: (Interrupting) If Honor please, confession,— McLeod: Court: Hostile witness. Overrule. except, please. night 1962, Selma, Alabama, Dallas County jail didn't statement: (reading 'I, Olen Ray the—' You've there. except.' 'After objections: I'd grounds evidence, outside hearing defendant, deny motion. Honor, proceedings, attempts prosecution illegal fair just verdict whatsoever prejudiced. Motion proceedings very irregular here feel prejudicial defendant. Your motion, Honor. please.'

Category: 0