Document: 337 U.S. 241 69 S.Ct. 1079 93 L.Ed. 1337 WILLIAMSv.PEOPLE OF STATE NEW YORK. No. 671. Argued April 21, 1949. Decided June 6, Rehearing Denied 27, See 961, 1529. Appeal from the Court of Appeals State New York. Mr. John F. Finerty, York City, for appellant. Solomon Klein, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellee. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 A jury in a state court found appellant guilty murder first degree.1 The recommended life imprisonment, but trial judge imposed sentence death.2 In giving his reasons imposing death discussed open evidence upon which had convicted stating that this been considered light additional information obtained through court's 'Probation Department, and other sources.' Consideration was pursuant to § 482 Criminal Code provides: 2 '* * Before rendering judgment or pronouncing shall cause defendant's previous criminal record be submitted it, including any reports may have made as result mental, phychiatric (sic) physical examination such person, seek will aid determining proper treatment defendant.' 3 affirmed conviction over contention construed applied controlling penal statutes are violation due process clause Fourteenth Amendment Constitution United States 'in based supplied by witnesses with whom accused not confronted he no opportunity cross-examination rebuttal *.' 298 N.Y. 803, 804, 83 N.E.2d 698. Because were sustained constitutional challenge case is here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2). 4 narrow makes it unnecessary set out facts at length. shows carefully conducted lasting more than two weeks represented three appointed lawyers who defense fidelity zeal. proved wholly indefensible committed person engaged burglary. instructed if returned verdict charged, without recommendation sentence, 'The must impose penalty,' made, 'the sentence.' went emphasize bound accept your recommendation.' About five after statutory pre-sentence investigation report judge, defendant brought sentenced. Asked what say, protested innocence. After each appealed jury's gave why felt should imposed. He narrated shocking details crime shown evidence, expressing own complete belief appellant's guilt. stated revealed many material concerning background though relevant question punishment could properly attention its consideration referred experience 'had thirty burglaries about same vicinity' where committed. these although confessed some identified perpetrator others. also certain activities probation indicated possessed 'a morbid sexuality' classified him 'menace society.' accuracy statements past practices challenged counsel, nor asked disregard them afford chance refute discredit otherwise. 5 presents serious difficult question. relates rules applicable manner obtain guide imposition an already defendant. Within limits fixed statutes, judges given broad discretion decide type extent defendants. Here, example, judge's imprisonment death. To exercising intelligently procedural policy encourages consider person's life, health, habits, conduct, mental moral propensities. sentencing even outside courtroom persons has permitted confront cross-examine. It basis policy. 6 Appellant urges irreconcilable conflict underlying philosophy second grounded law Amendment. That Re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, 508, 92 682, part tried offense unless reasonable notice charges against afforded examine adverse witnesses.3 does provide salutary time-tested protections guilt seems entirely clear genesis historical evolution clause. See, e.g., Chambers v. Florida, 309 227, 236—237, 60 472, 476, 477, 84 716, authorities cited note 10. 7 Tribunals passing always hedged strict evidentiary limitations.4 But both before since American colonies became nation, courts country England practiced exercise wide sources types used assist kind within law.5 Out-of-court affidavits frequently, course smaller communities naturally mind their knowledge personalities backgrounds offenders.6 recent manifestation latitude allowed appears Rule 32 Federal Rules Procedure, 18 rule provides federal officers containing defendant, 'as helpful granting correctional *.'7 8 addition different governing procedures there sound practical distinction. issue whether having conduct specifically accused. fashioned trials narrowly confine contest strictly particular charged. These rest necessity prevent time consuming confusing collateral issues. They designed trubunals concerned solely being influenced convict habitually misconduct. however, confined His task determine determined. Highly relevant—if essential—to selection appropriate possession fullest possible characteristics.8 And modern concepts individualizing all necessary denied pertinent requirement rigid adherence restrictive trial. 9 Undoubtedly prevalent penology fit offender merely crime. People Johnson, 252 387, 392, 169 N.E. 619. longer prevails every like legal category calls identical regard habits offender. This whole traveled far period automatic commonplace convictions—even offenses today deemed trivial.9 Today's sentences sharp distinctions example between repeated offenders.10 Indeterminate sentences, ultimate termination sometimes decided nonjudicial agencies large taken place old rigidly punishments.11 practice relies heavily non-judicial implementation accepted wise policy.12 Execution parole system rests administrative board. 36 Stat. 819, §§ 714, (now 4202—4204.) Retribution dominant objective law. Reformation rehabilitation offenders become important goals jurisprudence.13 10 Modern changes make now century ago observance evidential procedure processes. For indeterminate resulted increase discretionary powers exercised fixing punishments. general, making lot harder. On contrary strong motivating force careful study lives less severely punished restored sooner freedom useful citizenship. justified. 11 Under punishments, techniques role. Probation workers investigations trained prosecute offenders. Their high value conscientious want best available rather guesswork inadequate information.14 deprive would undermine penological policies cautiously adopted throughout nation experimentation. We recognize most relied intelligent unavailable restricted witnesse subject cross-examination. draws aspect life.15 totally impractical impossible testimony Such endlessly delay administration retrial 12 considerations we admonish us treating due-process uniform command Nation abandon age-old seeking out-of-court toward enlightened just sentence. maximum minimum sentences.16 cannot escape grave responsibility receive one-year twenty-year do think restricts view received court. treated device freezing mold procedure. So treat hinder preclude courts—state federal—from progressive efforts improve justice. 13 urged, draw distinction obtaining contention. Leaving free avail himself fateful choice secure power, one susceptible abuse. considering barrier created, remembered possibility abuse wherever choose conceded objection sentenced because impressed bad risk society, reason all. say renders void gets awesome power 14 fairly followed hearing judge. Upon inquiry imposed, statements. counsel extended arguments. highest state, reverse error sentence.17 affirmed. hold law.18 15 Affirmed. 16 RUTLEDGE dissents. 17 MURPHY, dissenting. combination factors impels me dissent. 19 Petitioner jury, heard unanimously suitable observed trial, adduced him, spite character they guilty, unwilling decree taken. our sits representative community; voice society vested authority so, hesitate indeed severity community expression. 20 willing moreover, only scrupulous rights indicates man reliance report, consisting almost inadmissible Some, allegations prior crimes, irrelevant. Much incompetent hearsay. All damaging, none scrutiny 21 Due includes least idea accorded fair stages proceedings him. I agree humaneness liberal use developed penologists, but, capital case, unanimous concededly admissible am forced conclude commands obeyed. killing human being, excusable justifiable, degree, when committed: '2. By act imminently dangerous others, evincing depraved mind, regardless premeditated design effect individual; death, commission of, attempt commit felony, either affecting killed otherwise *' Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, 1044. 'Murder degree punishable recommends provided section ten hundred forty-five-a.' 1045. 'A finding defined subdivision forty-four, may, verdict, recommend imprisoned term natural life. recommendation, life.' 1045-a. Other requirements mentioned Oliver offer behalf counsel. Appellant, sentenced, did decline permit introduction evidence. response inquiry, Courts differently. Snyder Commonwealth Massachusetts, 291 97, 107, 128 129, 54 330, 332, 333, 340, 341, 78 674, 90 A.L.R 575; Graham West Virginia, 224 616, 619, 583, 584, 56 917; Dalhover, Cir., 96 F.2d 355, 359—360. cf. Stevenson, 64 W.Va. 62 S.E. 688, L.R.A.,N.S., 713. cases collected A. & E. Ann.Cas. 968, et seq.; 77 A.L.R. 1211 86 832 seq. Note, Admissibility Character Evidence Determining Sentence, U. Chi.L.Rev. 715 (1942). Pound, America 178 (1930). Stephan States, 133 87, 100. 3655, 3655. Myerson, Views Sentencing Criminals, Law Soc.J. 854, (1937); Glueck, Principles Rational Code, 41 Harv.L.Rev. 453 (1928); Warner Cabot, Administration Jusice, 50 607 Comment, Reform 53 Yale L.J. 773 (1944). Blackstone, Commentaries Laws 1756—1757 (Lewis' Ed. 1897). With respect Act (18 3651—3655) said: 'It individualize give careful, humane, comprehensive situation discretion.' Burns 287 216, 220, 154, 155, 266. Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan Ashe, 302 51, 55, 58 59, 61, 82 43, further stated: 'For determination justice generally requires acts into account circumstances together propensities offender.' see Wood Waite, Crime Its Treatment 438—442 (1941). 437 (1941); Orfield, Procedure Arrest 556—565 (1947). Ill.Rev.Stat. 38, 802 (1939); Cal.Pen.Code 1168 232 (1933); National Assn., Directory Parole Officers 275 (1947); Cooley, Delinquency (1927). Judge Ulman writing Trial Judge's Dilemma discusses problems quotes opinions sentence: '1st. protection wrong-doers. '2nd. punishment—or much better—the discipline wrong-doer. '3rd. reformation '4th. deterrence others offenses. obvious dealing involves individual basis. Was property only, involve danger life? sudden passion studied deliberate? Is so constituted habituated war little real hope ever can anything menace obviously amenable reformation?' 113 (1933). Encyc. Soc. Science, Institutions 57—64 (1934). late Lewis B. Schwellenbach article difficulties wrote: man, family, treatment. There substitute information. tools acquire Failure full those justified.' Schwellenbach, Information vs. Intuition Imposition 27 J.Am.Jud.Soc. 52 (1943). McGuire Holtzoff, Problem Sentence B.U.L.Rev. 423 (1940). publication circulated Administrative Office contains suggested form serves contained reports. consists thirteen 'marginal headings.' (1) Offense; (2) Prior Record; (3) Family History; (4) Home Neighborhood; (5) Education; (6) Religion; (7) Interests Activities; (8) Health (physical mental); (9) Employment; (10) Resources; (11) Summary; (12) Plan; (13) Agencies Interested. Each headings broken down sub-headings. represents framework inserted composite picture Courts, Presentence Investigation Report, Pub. 101 few illustrate fix penalty. Robbery 'less years' 'more years.' 2125. Rape 'punishable twenty 2010. Burglary years, burglary 'for exceeding fifteen 407. Stein, Misc. 161 N.Y.S. 1107; Barone Fox, 202 1126; 393, 348 Pa. 349, 35 A.2d 312. As English Crim.App.R. 89, 90—91. Also Right Offenders Challenge Reports Used 49 Col.L.Rev. 567 (1949). What said holding immune Townsend Burke, 334 736, 1252, 1690.

Category: 3