Document: 526 U.S. 314119 S.Ct. 1307143 L.Ed.2d 424 MITCHELL v. UNITED STATES(97-7541)122 F.3d 185, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATES119 No. 97 7541 AMANDA MITCHELL, PETITIONER STATES ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR THIRD CIRCUIT [April 5, 1999] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Two questions relating to a criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination are presented us. The first is whether, in federal system, guilty plea waives sentencing phase case, either as result colloquy preceding or by operation law when entered. We hold not waiver at sentencing. second question determining facts about crime which bear upon severity sentence, trial court may draw an adverse inference from silence. inference. 2 * Petitioner Amanda Mitchell 22 other defendants were indicted for offenses arising conspiracy distribute cocaine Allentown, Pennsylvania, 1989 1994. According indictment, leader conspiracy, Harry Riddick, obtained large quantities resold drug through couriers street sellers, including petitioner. was charged with one count conspiring five more kilograms cocaine, violation 21 U.S.C. § 846 three counts distributing within 1,000 feet school playground, §860(a). In 1995, without any agreement, petitioner pleaded all four counts. She reserved right contest quantity attributable her under count, District Court advised would be determined hearing. 3 Before accepting plea, made inquiries required Rule 11 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure. Informing penalties offenses, Judge her, "the range punishment here very complex because we don't know how much Government's going able show you involved in." App. 39. judge told she faced mandatory minimum year prison §860 near playground. also "serious depending on involved" 10 years §841 if could held responsible least 5 but less than 15 cocaine. Id., 42. By pleading guilty, explained, waive various rights, remain silent Amendment." 45. 4 After Government explained factual basis charges, judge, having put oath, asked "Did do that?" answered, "Some it." 47. indicated that, although present transactions substantive distribution had herself customer. maintained liable nevertheless aider abettor delivery another courier. discussion counsel, reaffirmed intention plead charges. noted might have defense theory that did aid abet transaction. again confirmed accepted plea. 1996, nine petitioner's original codefendants went trial. Three co-defendants agreed cooperate Government. They testified regular seller ringleader Riddick. At hearing, adopted their testimony, them furnished additional information amount sold. him, worked two times week, selling ounces day, April 1992 August 1992. Then, December 1993 January 1994 March those charge On cross-examination, codefendant conceded he seen during relevant period. 6 Both referred testimony Alvitta Mack, who series buys supervision enforcement agents, purchases totaling no evidence sentencing, nor testify rebut quantity. Her counsel argued, however, documented sales Mack constituted only sufficient reliability credited purposes. 7 this hearing ruled consequence respect details crimes. found credible indicating been courier basis. Sales twice week half over 5-kilogram threshold, thus mandating sentence years. "One things" persuading rely "not testifying contrary." 95. petitioner: 8 " 'I it didn't come forward today tell me really couple . I'm taking position should explain your side issue. 9 'Your counsel's If he's it's higher regard, I willing bring back resentencing. And then take closer look [codefendants'] testimony.' 98 99. sentenced statutory imprisonment, supervised release, special assessment $200. Appeals Third Circuit affirmed sentence. 122 185 (1997). Appeals, "By voluntarily knowingly offense waived privilege." 189. acknowledged Circuits witness can "claim his used enhance sentence," id., 190 (citing United States Garcia, 78 1457, 1463, n. (CA10), cert. denied, 517 1239 (1996)), said rule "does withstand analysis," F.3d, 191. thought illogical "fragment process," retaining components while waiving others. Ibid. Petitioner's reservation drugs change court's analysis. Appeals' view: 12 "Mitchell opened up full possible sentences penalty maximum life imprisonment. While government its proof drugs, declination issue properly her." 13 defendant retain crimes, observed: does claim implicated crimes retried state same offense." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §111 (1998), statute bars, certain exceptions, prosecution following conviction based conduct). 14 Michel concurred, reasoning error drawing silence harmless amply supported [the judge's] finding quantity" even consideration failure testify. 192. Other confronted retains See, e.g., Kuku, 129 1435, 1437 1438 (CA11 1997); 1463 (CA10 1996); De La Cruz, 996 F.2d 1307, 1312 1313 (CA1 1993); Hernandez, 962 1152, 1161 (CA5 1992); Bank One Cleveland, N. A. Abbe, 916 1067, 1075 1076 (CA6 1990); Lugg, 892 101, 102 103 (CADC 1989); Paris, 827 395, 398 399 (CA9 1987). granted certiorari resolve apparent circuit conflict created decision, 524 __ now reverse. II 16 maintains compelled comprehended otherwise retained 17 It well established witness, single proceeding, subject invoke questioned details. See Rogers States, 340 367, 373 (1951). matters testifies, scope "waiver cross-examination," Brown 356 148, 154 155 (1958). "The himself, certainly party, determines area disclosure therefore inquiry," 155. Nice will arise, course, extent initial whether ensuing scope, suffices note general rule. justifications testimonial context evident: A pick choose what aspects particular discuss casting doubt trustworthiness statements diminishing integrity inquiry. As Rogers, contrary "would open way distortion permitting select stopping place testimony," U.S., 371. would, Brown, "make humane safeguard judicially coerced self-disclosure positive invitation mutilate truth party offers tell," 156. illogic allowing offer self-selected obvious so there unfairness cross-examination given invoking privilege. 19 assume purposes opinion, then, and, taken stand trial, "some it," cross-examined frequency deliveries involved. concerns justify testifies absent colloquy, however. purpose protect unintelligent involuntary turn constitutional shield into prosecutorial sword relinquish rights entry 20 There convincing reason why narrow inquiry entail such extensive Unlike stand, "cannot reasonably gives him immunity has himself dispute," 156, pleads puts nothing dispute regarding essentials offense. Rather, takes out dispute, often making joint statement confirming prosecution's version facts. Under these circumstances, little danger misled selective disclosure. like stipulate decision stand. Here, done proffered conduct pose threat factfinding proceedings, Court's simply ensure understood charges case. Nor Procedure 11, governs pleas, contemplate broad envisions. directs district court, before ascertain understands giving tried jury self-incrimination." 11(c)(3). transcript case discloses took care comply provisions 11. correctly instructed "You Amendment, option, controversy gone." Neither itself explication indicates consents suffer consequences declining so. admonition effect surrender "at trial" warning brought home inform loses forgoing elicit proceedings still follow. attendant privileges exist beyond confines 23 Of discharge duty ensuring "question[ing] record, presence pleaded." 11(c)(5). authority make whatever deems necessary sound discretion assure being pressured withholds runs risk find inadequate. once accepted, admissions later admissible defendant, itself. necessarily self-incrimination. prevent relying 24 Treating grave encroachment defendants. oral argument, reliable involved, prosecutor "could say, well, can't prove it, we'd cross-examine see get admit Tr. Oral Arg. Counsel answered: "[T]he analysis suggests surrounding admitted, that." Over 90% whose cases dismissed enter pleas nolo contendere. Dept. Justice, Bureau Statistics, Sourcebook Statistics p. 448 (24th ed. 1997). Were accept position, prosecutors indict specifying obtain fill enlist instrument own condemnation, undermining long tradition vital principle accusations proved Government, inquisitions conducted power. Richmond, 365 534, 541 (1961) ("[O]urs accusatorial inquisitorial system"). 25 reject functioned B 26 centerpiece Circuit's idea completes incrimination extinguishing Where yet imposed, already rejected proposition "incrimination complete guilt adjudicated," Estelle Smith, 451 454, 462 (1981), today. 27 cited Wigmore Evidence "criminality ceases; criminality 191 J. Wigmore, §2279, 481 (J. McNaughton rev. 1961)). passage relied support view follows: "Legal consists liability law's punishment. When removed, argued continues until Even interpretation treatise correct, means ceases respond suggested wrong. supplement treatise, indeed, states proper "[a]lthough sentenced, remains unimpaired." 991, (A. Best Supp. 1998). 28 true, rule, where further incrimination, assertion conclude applies fixed judgment become final. Reina 364 507, 513 (1960). visited convicted person feared. 29 imposed legitimate fear testimony. stated Estelle: "Any effort State compel defendant] clearly contravene 463. capital apply noncapital hearings well. essence basic 'the requirement proposes convict punish individual produce independent labor officers, simple, cruel expedient forcing lips.' (emphasis original) (quoting Culombe Connecticut, 367 568, 581 582 (1961)). makes implicit concession acceptance eliminate possibility incrimination. brief Court, acknowledges awaits after assert called codefendant, part responding "to impact crimes." Brief 31. 30 terms prevents "compelled himself." Const., Amdt. 5. To maintain "any case" common sense. law, Procedure, must impose 32(d)(1) ("A set forth sentence"); cf. Mempa Rhay, 389 128, 134 (1967). sense, appears true justice concerned innocence imprisonment upwards life, circumstances crime. say instead deprivation liberty ignore precise stage where, point view, most important. Our applicable deemed proceeding separate need resolve. III 31 footnote unwaived entitled, silence, regard her. 32, 18. normal negative permitted. Griffin California, 380 609, 614 (1965). decline adopt exception determinations respecting 32 This recognized prevailing forbid inferences parties civil actions they refuse response probative offered them," Baxter Palmigiano, 425 308, 318 (1976), refusal lead "automatically [the] imposition sanctions," Lefkowitz Cunningham, 431 801, 808, (1977). ordinary cases, invocation opposing capacity avoid offering prosecution. privilege, though suffering default, accommodates oneself litigation proceed. Another treating differently stakes higher" stake, "sole interest convict." Baxter, 319. 33 disciplinary which, noted, "are proceedings" "involve correctional process important interests crime." 316, Cf. Ohio Adult Parole Authority Woodard, 523 272 (1998) (adverse permissible clemency nonjudicial post-conviction case). explicit concern accordance text accord protection due Griffin, supra. 34 mandate equal force Without question, high: drawn resulted decades added motive demand severe central unwilling instru- ment condemnation importance. 35 holding product existing precedent, "discern distinguish between phases respondent's murder far concerned." Although here, seeks use infer commission disputed acts. supra, determine specifics confine ignoring Estelle. truncate our precedents way. 36 proven utility. Some ago expressed "[t]oo many, better advised, shelter wrongdoers. too readily commit perjury claiming Ullmann 350 422, 426 (1956). Later, quoted approval Wigmore's observation "[t]he layman's natural suggestion probably resort each instance clear confession crime," Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 340, (1978) §2272, citizens, jurors, skeptical prohibition Principles unsettled wide legal culture, prohibiting rightful essential feature tradition. began Griffin. considered some 44 allow invite 611, 3. teaching committed acts accused. carried bur- den allegations rights. burden proving cannot expense Whether bears determination lack remorse, responsibility downward adjustment provided §3E1.1 Sentencing Guidelines question. us, express it. 37 impermissible exercise reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 38 ordered. Scalia, J., dissenting 39 40 41 whom Chief O'Connor, Thomas join, dissenting. 42 agree my sentencer abstain flow respectfully dissent. 43 provides "[n]o shall matter, seem "compel" anyone (and governmentally imposed) failing factfinder's increased readiness believe incriminating chooses contradict. assuredly cons rather pros testify" calculus, Indeed, imagine instances, despite inference, damage Despite text, (1965), comment "penalty" stop there, Carter Kentucky, 450 288 must, asks, instruct sua sponte consider guilt. 45 majority muses no-adverse-inference "wide culture" "an tradition." Ante, 14. latter strikes hyperbolic, former adequate overrule course propose. reason, extend areas apply, since neither logic history marshaled them. line plain, exactly counter evidentiary inferences: ask son saw movie forbidden watch, silent, import clear. occasions significance saying '[f]ailure acquiescence object question.' 319 (1976) Hale, 422 171, 176 (1975)). ex rel. Bilokumsky Tod, 263 149, 153 (1923) ("Conduct forms evidence. Silence persuasive character"). 46 history, Griffin's pedigree equally dubious. factfinder logical formal arisen 1791, common-law rules prevented behalf wanted generally Ferguson Georgia, 570 (1961). That allowed speak behalf, expecting so, not, strongly sync historical understanding Amendment. Traditionally, expected extensively both pretrial stages proceeding. longstanding principle, nemo tenetur seipsum prodere, ban forced compulsory oath physical torture, voluntary, unsworn T. Barlow, Peace: Treatise Containing Power Duty Magistrate 189 (1745). 47 Pretrial procedure colonial America governed (as centuries England) Marian Committal Statute, provided: 48 "[S]uch Justices [of peace] Manslaughter Felony, suspicion thereof, send Prisoner Ward, examination Prisoner, fact circumstance thereof material Felony writing, days ." & Philip Mary, ch. (1555). 49 peace content statement; refused speak, reported jury. Langbein, Privilege Common Law Against Self-Incrimination 82, 92 (R. Helmholz et al. eds. 50 directly Sir James Stephen described 17th- 18th-century English trials 51 prisoner felony defended himself. He unable mouth closed. open, operated indirect questioning, omitted answer likely convicted." Stephen, History England 440 (1883). 52 Beattie, Crime Courts England: 1660 1800, pp. 348 349 (1986) ("And assumption false, ought suggest why, deny evidence"); W. Hawkins, Pleas Crown, 39, §2 (8th 1824) (confirming trial). Though permitted, adverting upholding rarely silent. 95 96. 53 No one, seemed think system inconsistent prodere. indication abrupt about-face ratified fundamental state-constitution analogues. Moglen, British North America: Colonial Period Self Incrimination, 139 140. continued questioning suspects, introduced Fourth Report Commissioners Practice Pleadings New York Code xxviii (1849); Complete Works Edward Livingston Jurisprudence (1873). objection raised procedure, purely ground Statute new republic. Hening, Virginia Justice: Comprising Office Peace 285 (4th 1825). assistance became common, occurred gradually throughout 19th century. Beaney, Right American 226 (1955). 54 arise enacting statutes providing competent behalf. Maine 1864, rest eventually followed. §579 (3d 1940). (including statute, 3481) contained clause cautioning testify, disagreement approach sufficiently widespread late 1953, Uniform drafted National Conference Laws "[i]f accused action [sic] accused's trier reasonable therefrom." 23(4). Model 201(3) (1942) (similar). 55 Whatever merits legislative policy, ante, 14-15, give demeanor hardy forebears, compulsion rack oaths power viewed commonsensical equivalent pressure. implausible Americans sworn somehow "revised" incorporated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Government) enacted competency adopted, prohibit testify.1 56 pretend rooted breathtaking act sorcery transformed policy command, quoting earlier describing benevolent 3481 decreeing, literally it: "If words 'Fifth Amendment' substituted 'act' 'statute,' spirit reflected." 613 614. Imagine constitution mode exegesis applied if, example, point, procedural statutes, mind, wrong cause enough resist extension. 57 asserts "adopt exception" 13. characterization evidently demanded, Amendment: phrase requires us "accord .as case." demonstrably 58 dichotomy phases. jury-trial Sixth guarantees "[i]n prosecutions," term indistinguishable Amendment's "in Spaziano Florida, 468 447, 463 (1984). guarantee witnesses him." (The consider, reports probation officers psychiatrists affording cross-examination.) Williams York, 337 241, 252 (1949). Likewise inapplicable doubt. McMillan 477 79, (1986). 59 refusing "truncate" 454 proceedings. 462. With indications caselaw, seems quite impossible read holding, guilt, precisely Thus fairly put, create "exception" will, time, phase. For normally "no inference" practice. Since, Part I, practice, help except mistakenly expanded. 60 Consistency jurisprudence points direction. permitted denial clemency, 272, 286 rules, 319, deportation, INS Lopez-Mendoza, 1032, 1043 1044 (1984) 154).2 exposed completed treated unless form inseparable "criminal case," refuted above. Nor, add dicta quotes unified whole, else leave acceptance-of-responsibility guideline escapes inferences. 15. 61 Which brings greatest bizarre inconsistency all: combination adopts balance particular. "[C]ourts country England," said, "practiced [can] sources types assist kind limits law." 246. "[A] 'may appropriately largely unlimited source come.' Nichols 511 738, 747 (1994) Tucker, 404 443, 446 (1972)). "Few available judge," observed, likelihood [a transgress more, hope rehabilitative efforts lawful future career, [and] degree deem war society' willingness cooperate. Roberts 445 552, 558 (1980). 3661 ("No limitation placed concerning background, character, receive imposing appropriate sentence.") Today's states, inconspicuous manner end (one imagines orally spoken low voice, hand mouth), "Whether question" expresses view. Never mind before, albeit dicta, "[w]e principled distinction 'enhancing' denying 'leniency' claims cooperated." Roberts, 557, 4. 62 clutter swept rug limiting "determining offense" merely application today's §3E1.1, responsibility, repentance, dangerousness, prosecutions bulk about. ultimately decides fullness time decent period confusion lower courts indeed limited offense," increase possessor refuses many possessed larger (to unconstitutional!) unrepentant. Apart (whereas entirely logical), produced Mr. Bumble's renowned evaluation law. Its sensible almost always unenforceable, ordinarily neither. 63 If, hand, extension announced access sorts out-of-court evidence, remote hearsay, character prior misdeeds, mend ways, declare taboo piece first-hand standing front judge: court. Such orders avert eyes elephant courtroom judge's job size elephant. 64 patent inadequacy courses "facts finessed resolving, being, Sooner choice made, alternatives unsatisfactory cries mistake. 65 "is utility." Significantly, utility proceeds describe "vital instrument" jurors accused," "whether allegations" bearing usual sentencer, 66 67 protects held, uncooperativeness stage. Notes 68 1. were: 1866 Mass. Acts, 260; Vt. 40; 1867 Nev. Stats., XVIII, Leg. Acts 1868 Conn. Laws, XCVI; Minn. LXX. 1864 Me. 280; Cal. DCXLIV; S. C. 4780. 69 2. note, absolute. 609 Miranda Arizona, 384 436 (1966), postarrest 468, (dictum). But permits impeached prearrest Jenkins Anderson, 447 231, 238 (1980), Fletcher Weir, 455 603 (1982) (per curiam), trial; vitality pre-Griffin Jenkins, 235 236, (recognizing Raffel 271 494 (1926)). Thomas, 70 71 72 73 Scalia's persuasively demonstrates lacks foundation Constitution's logic. vacuousness supplies "cause extension." 7. And, illustrates progeny, reexamined. 74 Scalia notes, "illogic plain" "pedigree dubious." Not fail analysis, rests unsound assumption. partly premise comments therefrom) penalized 614; Carter, 301. rightly truly "penalize" defendant. 620 621 (Stewart, joined White, dissenting) ("Exactly clear"); ("[T]he California provision places incriminate perceive"). Prosecutorial surely greater threats serious bargain practice previously validated. Bordenkircher Hayes, 434 357, (finding negotiations "presented unpleasant facing plainly prosecution"). Moreover, so-called significance, fully honored himself," ("comment creating awareness" testify); 306 (Powell, concurring) ("But [Self-Incrimination] circumstances").* Therefore, bottom, constitutionalizes desirable time. compounded error. sort undertaking judicial willfulness point. 310 (Rehnquist, ("Such Thomistic itself, know"). 75 stare decisis weakest interpret Constitution altered amendment overruling decisions." Agostini Felton, 521 203, Given indefensible foundations, reconsider asks extended, therefore, join 76 *. 7, improperly interpreting resolution repeated Carter. 300 301, 16.

Category: 0