Document: 360 U.S. 264 79 S.Ct. 1173 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 Henry NAPUE, Petitioner,v.PEOPLE OF THE STATE ILLINOIS. No. 583. Argued April 30, 1959. Decided June 15, Mr. George N. Leighton, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. William C. Wines, respondent. Chief Justice WARREN, delivered the opinion of Court. 1 At murder trial petitioner principal state witness, then serving a 199-year sentence same murder, testified in response to question by Assistant State's Attorney that he had received no promise consideration return his testimony. The fact promised him consideration, but did nothing correct witness' false jury was apprised, however, public defender 'to do what could' witness. presented is whether on these facts failure f t prosecutor testimony witness which knew be denied due process law violation Fourteenth Amendment Constitution United States. 2 record this Court contains from following could have been found. occurred early morning August 21, 1938, Illinois, cocktail lounge. Petitioner Napue, Hamer, one Poe and Townsend entered dimly lighted lounge announced their intention rob those present. An offduty policeman, present lounge, drew service revolver began firing at four men. In melee followed killed, officer fatally wounded, Hamer seriously wounded. Napue carried car where fifth man, Webb, waiting. course apprehended, tried convicted plea guilty sentenced 199 years. Subsequently, tried, convicted, death executed. not used as Thereafter, apprehended. He put with being State. Hamer's extremely important because passage time dim light made eyewitness identification very difficult uncertain, some pertinent witnesses left state. On basis evidence presented, consisted largely testimony, returned verdict 4 Finally, driver car, also against him. 5 Following conviction lawyer who, former Attorney, prosecuted cases filed petition nature writ error coram nobis behalf Hamer. alleged prosecuting attorney if would testify 'a recommendation reduction (Hamer's) and, possible effectuated.'1 prayed court effect 'consummation compact into between duly authorized representatives State Illinois Hamer.' 6 This proceeding came attention who thereafter post-conviction petition, falsely testimony,2 handling case known false. A hearing ultimately held testfie d only help story 'about reluctant participant' robbery borne out, merely petitioner's trial. 'probably language (he) should used' 'zeal something Hamer' whom 'felt moral obligation.' lower relief attorney's 7 appeal, Supreme affirmed different grounds over two dissents. 13 Ill.2d 566, 150 N.E.2d 613. It found, contrary court, trial, finding does contest here. further found lied denying consideration. held, entitled since already apprised someone tentatively identified 'was going aid trying get did' him.3 We granted certiorari consider posed first paragraph opinion. 358 919, 293, 238. 8 First, it established obtained through use evidence, such State, must fall under Amendment, Mooney v. Holohan, 294 103, 55 340, L.Ed. 791; Pyle Kansas, 317 213, 63 177, 87 214; Curran Delaware, Cir., 259 F.2d 707. See New York ex rel. Whitman Wilson, 318 688, 840, 1083, White Ragen, 324 760, 65 978, 89 1348. Compare Jones Commonwealth Kentucky, 97 335, 338, re Sawyer's Petition, 229 805, 809. Cf. Mesarosh States, 352 1, 77 1. result obtains when al though soliciting allows go uncorrected appears. Alcorta Texas, 355 28, 78 9; States Thompson Dye, 221 763; Almeida Baldi, 195 815, 33 A.L.R.2d 1407; Montgomery D.C., 86 F.Supp. 382. generally annotation, 1575. 9 principle may knowingly including obtain tainted conviction, implicit any concept ordered liberty, cease apply goes credibility jury's estimate truthfulness reliability given well determinative guilt or innocence, upon subtle factors interest testifying defendant's life liberty depend. As stated Appeals similar one, People Savvides, N.Y.2d 554, 557, 154 N.Y.S.2d 885, 887, 136 853, 854—855: 10 'It consequence falsehood bore rather than directly guilt. lie lie, matter its subject, way relevant case, district has responsibility duty knows elicit truth. * That silence guile desire prejudice matters little, impact same, preventing, did, real sense termed fair.' 11 Second, we believe other believing an turned otherwise fair one. Schaefer, joined Davis, rightly dissenting below, 571, 613, 616: 12 'What overlooked here clearly offered except unidentified defender's office.' Had true facts, might concluded fabricated order curry favor representative testifying, believed position implement (as attempted do) himself thought establish before official source clear redirect examination, last heard jury: 14 'Q. Judge Prystalski (the judge) you sentence? A. No, sir. 15 Have I recommend anybody? You not. (That answer so prosecutor.) 16 Has criminal they (sic) reduce your 17 Parole Board see 18 Governor sir.' 19 are therefore unable agree 'there constitutional infirmity virtue statement.' 20 Third, argues free reach factual conclusion reached Court, bound determination reasonable likelihood affected judgment jury. relies Hysler Florida, 315 411, 62 932. But i th standard specificity substantiality making allegations federal deprivations respected, own 'independent examination' there determine met Florida standard. make independent examination clear, resting, does, our solemn maintaining inviolate. Martin Hunter's Lessee, Wheat. 304, 97; Cooper Aaron, 1401, 5. Niemotko Maryland, 340 268, 271, 71 325, 327, 95 267: 21 'In claim denial rights Federal Constitution, conclusions courts, will reexamine evidentiary founded.' 22 now settled able speak Kern-Limerick, Inc. Scurlock, 347 110, 121, 74 403, 410, 98 546, 'long judicial construction establishes rests decide itself constructions issues rest.'4 previously indicated, evaluation compels us hold securing outcome Accordingly, below reversed. 23 Reversed. part, read follows: 'After Attorney) knowing Poe, Webb apprehended unsatisfactory character kind asked inflict proper, severe penalty, advance confessions participation crime, represented willing cooperate enforcing officials trials were possible, effectuated. 'Before expressed reluctance unless definite assurance made. Your petitioner, feeling interests justice required again assured every effort conform him.' cross-examination: Did anybody give reward testifying? There ain't nobody me anything.' elicited answer. (by not.' subject: (on cross-examination) And didn't tell (one Napue's attorneys) wouldn't got it? Yes, did; told that. What for? One Hundred Ninety-Nine Years. hope reduced, don't you? Well, anything me, why certainly would. Weren't expecting today? haven't anything, more lawyer. come talked while ago said could. Which that? know; Public Defender. mean Defender's office? imagine from, know. me. try to. them (police officers) (testify Napue) expected chance getting any. man know, couldn't anything. Then spoke today cut? even know name. *' See, e.g., Payne Arkansas, 356 560, 562, 844, 847, 975; Leyra Denno, 556, 558, 716, 717, 948; Avery Georgia, 345 559, 561, 73 891, 892, 1244; Feiner York, 315, 322, 323, note 4, 303, 307, 267 (dissenting opinion); Cassell 339 282, 283, 70 629, 94 839; Haley Ohio, 332 596, 599, 68 302, 92 224; Malinski 401, 404, 781, 783, 1029; Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 149, 64 921, 923, 88 1192; Ward 316 547, 550, 1139, 1141, 1663; Smith 311 128, 130, 61 164, 165, 85 84; South Carolina Bailey, 289 412, 420, 53 667, 670, 1292. also, Roth 354 476, 497, 1304, 1315, 1498 Stroble California, 343 181, 190, 72 603, 96 872; Sterling Constantin, 287 378, 398, 195, 375; Southern Pacific Co. Schuyler, 227 601, 611, 277, 280, 57 662; Creswill Grand Lodge Knights Pythias, 225 246, 261, 32 822, 56 1074. Holmes, writing recognized 35 years Davis Wechsler, 263 22, 24, 44 13, 14, 143: 'If laws enforced, cannot accept final decision tribunal rise right bar assertion local grounds.'

Category: 0