Document: 436 U.S. 478 98 S.Ct. 1930 56 L.Ed.2d 468 Michael TAYLOR, Petitioner,v.Commonwealth of KENTUCKY. No. 77-5549. Argued March 27, 1978. Decided May 30, Syllabus At petitioner's Kentucky state robbery trial, which resulted in his conviction, the trial court instructed jury as to prosecutor's burden proof beyond a reasonable doubt but refused, inter alia, requested instruction on presumption innocence. The victim was prosecution's only witness, and petitioner sole defense witness. prosecutor opening statement related circumstances arrest indictment. In closing statement, made observations suggesting that status defendant tended establish guilt. Court Appeals affirmed rejecting argument he entitled matter due process under Fourteenth Amendment. Held : On facts, court's refusal give innocence violation right fair guaranteed by Due Process Clause Howard v. Fleming, 191 126, 24 49, 48 L.Ed. 121, distinguished. Pp. 483-490. (a) While legal scholar may understand are logically similar, ordinary citizen draw significant additional guidance from an 483-485. (b) An is one way impressing upon importance accused's have guilt or determined solely basis evidence introduced at not grounds official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, other adduced trial. 485-486. (c) remarks during statements, together with skeletal instructions court, gave rise genuine risk would convict extraneous considerations, rather than heightened fact essentially swearing contest between accused. 486-488. (d) That did obviate necessity for presumption-of-innocence view both special purpose such particular need it this case. P. 1936. (e) Nor counsel argued statements dispense instruction, since arguments cannot substitute court. 488-489. 551 S.W.2d 813, reversed remanded. J. Vincent Aprile, II, Frankfort, Ky., petitioner. Guy C. Shearer, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 Only two Terms ago, observed "presumption innocence, although articulated Constitution, basic component our system criminal justice." Estelle Williams, 425 501, 503, 96 1691, 1692, 126 (1976). felony case, doubt, refused timely request indictment's lack evidentiary value. We asked decide whether Amendment requires either be given motions. 2 * Petitioner tried 1976, allegedly having forced into home James Maddox stolen house key billfold containing $10 $15. During voir dire jury, questioned panel about their understanding innocence,1 doubt,2 indictment evidence.3 then read jury.4 3 Commonwealth's witness Maddox. He testified had known several years entertained occasions. According Maddox, friend knocked door evening February 16, asking admitted. saying go bed. left, returned 15 minutes later. They in, hit over head, fled key, were never recovered. 4 took stand defense. admi ted been Maddox's occasions, denied going there 16 participating robbery. stated spent night friends sitting parked car, watching rainstorm power failure. Defense instruct "[t]he law presumes innocent crime,"5 previously considered against defendant.6 declined convey substance its charge jury. It proving doubt.7 found guilty sentenced five imprisonment. 5 affirmed, judge dissenting. 813 (1977). Pet tioner argued8—and Commonwealth denied9—that presumed innocent10 Both sides briefed federal decisions some length. Nevertheless, rejected contention citing case proposition "that long instructs necessary." Id., 814. Without any authority, also declared no merit position failure . [on value] denies law." Ibid. Because contemporaneous objection, consider improper.11 Supreme discretionary review, we granted certiorari, 434 964, 502, 54 449 now reverse. II 6 "The principle favor accused undoubted law, axiomatic elementary, enforcement lies foundation administration Coffin United States, 156 432, 453, 394, 403, 39 481 (1895). traced venerable history Deuteronomy through Roman English common States. held equally fundamental prosecution bears separate distinct, id., 458-461, S.Ct., 404-405, sharp scholarly riticism demonstrated error view, see, e. g., Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise Evidence 551-576 (1898) (hereafter Thayer); 9 Wigmore, § 2511 (3d ed. 1940) Wigmore); McCormick, 805-806 (2d 1972) McCormick).12 7 these same scholars advise abandoning even when complete explanation provided. Thayer 571-572; Wigmore 407; McCormick 806. See ALI, Model Penal Code 1.12(1) (Proposed Off.Draft 1962). This admonition derives perceived salutary effect lay jurors. well described follows: 8 "[I]n term [presumption innocences does perhaps useful hint above form rule proof, cautions put away minds all suspicion arises arrest, arraignment, reach conclusion adduced. words, convince guilt; while too, this, conveys caution (which implied corollary other) consider, material belief, nothing evidence, i. e., surmises based present situation indeed particularly needed cases. 407. has crime ocence See,e. g. And recognized right. See, States Thaxton, 483 F.2d 1071, 1073 (C.A. 1973); Reynolds 238 460, 463, n. 1956); People Hill, 182 Colo. 253, 257-258, 512 P.2d 257, 259 (1973); Carr State, 192 Miss. 152, 157, So.2d 887, 888 (1941); State Rivers, 206 Minn. 85, 93, 287 N.W. 790, 794 (1939); Madeiros, 255 Mass. 304, 316, 151 N.E. 297, 300 (1926); Reeves 29 Fla. 527, 542, 10 So. 901, 905 (1892). alsoHolt 218 245, 253-254, 31 2, 6, 1021 (1910); Agnew 165 36, 51-52, 17 235, 241, 41 624 (1897). use phrase innocence"—or words—may constitutionally mandated, must safeguard "against dilution established probative doubt." supra, U.S., 1693. "purging" F.2d, 1073, simply represents means protecting constitutional judged trial.13 III argues purging essential points out themselves skeletal, placing little emphasis duty prove none jury's testimony heard 11 Against background Spartan instructions, ranged far wide, inferences conduct "facts" propounded prosecutor. For example, reasonable-doubt standard declaring petitioner, "like every who's ever penitentiary reformatory today, until proved App. 45 (emphasis added). linked who turned could viewed invitation tending Similarly, responding counsel's rhetorical query whereabouts items "[o]ne first things defendants do after they rip someone off, get rid evi ence fast quickly can." invited determining innocence.14 12 Additionally, "took out" warrant grand Thus, defendant, permitted indictment.15 description those events necessarily improper, combination possible harmful references repeated suggestions created danger because accused.16 IV 13 required where, here, doubt. truncated discussion however, hardly model clarity. defined "a substantial real 40. definition, though itself reversible error, often criticized confusing. Muckenstrum, 515 568, 571 5), cert. denied, 423 1032, 564, 46 406 (1975); Christy, 444 448, 450 6), 404 949, 92 293, 30 266 (1971). if more clearly stated, ignores 14 contends required, statements. But Nelson, 498 1247 1974). Petitioner's deliberate hinge hope will effective advocate implying considered. rights, performed reliably. 1692.17 Finally, 121 (1903), require Howard, received court.18 explicit raised might matters evidence. Instead, plaintiffs-in-error relied erroneous "evidence" weighed favor. Brief Appellants O.T. 1903, Nos. 44 45, pp. 111-113. discarded before. 12, supra. "evidence." cast function actually introduced, given. V hold facts judgment conviction reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. So ordered. BRENNAN, concurring. 18 I join Court's reversing reaffirms "the 'presumption justice,' " ante, 479, quoting follows proposition, clear opinion, judges should defendant's entitlement cases where requested. 19 STEVENS, whom REHNQUIST joins, 20 refuse proper 460-461, 405, 481.1 not, sufficient reason holding trial.2 21 make persuasion rests entirely requiring doubt.3 One adds other. Neither omitted, "omission, incomplete less likely prejudicial misstatement Henderson Kibbe, 431 145, 155, 97 1730, 1737, 52 203. omission fatal, wisely avoids always so. 22 violate specific guarantee, privilege compulsory self-incrimination.4 deny admittedly brief, each juror despite indictment.5 precipitate objection listened it; therefore, provide reversal. Cf. 506-513, 1694, 1697. Although appraisal unreasonable, perfect believe committed. Accordingly, respectfully dissent. 19, 21. 19-21. 17. 23. point crime. Thus accused, begins 'clean slate.' is, him. permits presented before support alone acquit unless you satisfied careful impartial consideration case." 53. nearly identical contained E. Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice Instructions 11.14, p. 310 1977). Alston, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 132-133, 315, 318-319 (1976); Cummings, 274, 280 1972). proposed adverse inference can drawn finding merely written accusation charging commission force carries implication guilt." entirety, "All These your applicable you've "Number one, find following: A. county 1976 herein, stole sum money 249 Rosewood, Kentucky; B. course so doing used physical If fix punishment confinement nor ten discretion. two, whole him guilty. 'reasonable doubt' ask yourself better hearing three, verdict unanimous signed foreman. You provided end writing verdict. "There appended alternate verdicts, use: guilty; number blank penitentiary." 40-41. Record 15, 86-87. 56. challenge jurisdiction entertain claims, examined record ourselves exists. invoked "fundamental principle[s] judicial play." 51. sufficed alert reliance principles. face exclusive, Appeals, forfeited raise claims. short discuss decisions, relying instead authority. S.W.2d, 813-814 apparently highest settled issue almost 50 ago. Mink Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 674, 463 (1929). By contrast, quite explicitly prejudiced improper prosecutorial comments, ground operated bar appellate review. denoted procedural default. charge, Appeals' apparent claim, strain effort divest forum late date. Cicenia Lagay, 357 504, 507-508, 78 1297, 1299, 1523 (1958). resentencing order statutorily presentencing investigation. "an instrument whereby overcome created." 459, 405. As actual "evidence accused," distinguished standard, condition mind produced resulting cause." Professor ably distinction, pointing so-called "presumption" evidence—not evidence—but describing produce 560-563. Shortly appearance Thayer's criticism, Court, given, retreated generally innocence" inaccurate, shorthand "remain inactive secure, taken up effected persuasion; say other, opponent claim another proponent it." principal inaccuracy technically "presumption"—a mandatory characterized "assumption" indulged absence contrary 156, accord, Williams relates concept cognate requirements 1692. sense, interpret extended historical 453-460, 402-405, (1895), supporting emphasizing element process, civilized procedure. Johnson Louisiana, 356, 360, 1620, 1623, 32 152 (1972). suggest standing alone, level relevant carefully framed designed assure noted above, see 480-481, reference serve extraneous, negative circumstance influenced deliberations. cumulative potentially damaging violated guarantee fairness independently constituted error. approve appears suited forestalling matters, performing Part above. "although [began] emphasized permit "nothing accused." ABA Project Standards Criminal Justice, Function Trial Judge 1.1(a) (App.Draft 1972): responsibility safeguarding rights interests public justice. adversary nature relieve obligation raising own initiative, appropriate times manner, significantly promote just determination determine allow purpose." following instructions: "Now, gentlemen, cause admonishes yourselves feeling prejudice sympathy them account misfortune, try endeavored down you. When responded high responsibilities rest accords sentiment not. supposed indifferent influences influence perform duty. offense charged grave convicted, true constitution laws honest hands, feel sure such." 120. decision rested notion 460; cf. 566-575 (1898), surely sound. "Before overturn jury], undesirable, erroneous, 'universally condemned,' Amendment." Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 146, 94 396, 400, 38 368. "hint," 1940), arraignment count necessary, explicit. adequate stating expressly Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 342, 1091, 1096, 55 319 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). lawyer jurors questions: "You initiating paper brings us here way. It's document gets stage proceedings. Do nderstand that's evidence? "I'm agree final question regards Mike Taylor sits today young man second degree robbery, meet what call event return requirement doubt? removed guilty? "Do elementary can. Lawyers sometimes tendency complicated sufficiently clear. "I take silence understand."

Category: 0