Document: 406 U.S. 605 92 S.Ct. 1891 32 L.Ed.2d 358 Donald L. BROOKS, Petitioner,v.State of TENNESSEE. No. 71—5313. Argued March 21, 22, 1972. Decided June 7, Syllabus 1. Tennessee's statutory requirement that a defendant in criminal proceeding 'desiring to testify shall do so before any other testimony for the defense is heard by court trying case' violates defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. A may not be penalized remaining silent at close State's case being excluded from stand later trial. Pp. 1892—1895. 2. The Tennessee rule also infringes constitutional rights depriving him 'guiding hand counsel,' deciding only whether will but, if so, what stage. P. 1895. Jerry H. Summers, petitioner. Robert E. Kendrick, Nashville, Tenn., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioner was tried and convicted Circuit Court Hamilton County, Tennessee, on charges armed robbery unlawful possession pistol. During trial, case, counsel moved delay petitioner's until after witnesses had testified. trial denied this motion basis Tenn.Code Ann. § 40—2403 (1955), which requires case.'1 Although prosecutor agreed waive statute, refused, stating 'the law is, as you know it be, testifies he has first.' called two witnesses, but petitioner himself did take stand. 2 Following denial his new appealed conviction Criminal Appeals, overruled assignments error, including claim violated State Federal Constitutions. Supreme review, we granted certiorari consider first Constitution. 404 955, 328, 30 271 (1971). We reverse. 3 * must related ancient practice sequestering prospective order prevent their influenced case. See 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence 1837 (3d ed. 1940). Because entitled present during thus cannot sequestered, precede developed decision statute an alternative means minimizing influence him. According Professor '(t)he reason occasional readiness interested person adapt testimony, when offered later, victory rather than veracity, meet necessities laid open prior . .' Id., 1869. 4 Despite traditional justification, validity been questioned number jurisdictions limitation upon freedom decide Two federal courts have rejected contention, holding does abuse its discretion requiring first. United States v. Shipp, 359 F.2d 185, 189—190 (CA6 1966); Spaulding States, 279 65, 66—67 (CA9 1960). In however, dissenting judge strongly objected rule, stating: 5 'If man charged with crime takes witness own behalf, every arrest conviction, even lesser felonies, can brought jury prosecutor, such evidence devastating deadly effect, although unrelated offense charged. therefore, often utmost importance, must, many cases, meticulously balance advantages disadvantages prisoner's becoming behalf. Why, then, should insist accused introduced or completely foreclosed testifying thereafter? This savors judicial whim, though sanctioned some authorities; cause justice fair subjected whimsicality procedure.' F.2d, 190—191. Other followed line reasoning striking down impermissible restriction choice. leading Bell State, 66 Miss. 192, So. 389 (1889), held reversible saying: 7 'It very serious question placed witness, hazard cross-examination, one required full survey all state, met He intelligently weigh situation, and, advised, determine how act. Whether not; stage progress defense,—are equally submitted free unrestricted choice crime, are nature things beyond control direction presiding judge. Control either coercion, coercion action.' 194, So., 389. 8 Nassif District Columbia, 201 A.2d 519 (DC Ct.App.1964), adopted language concluding erred applying rule. 9 Bell, Nassif, Shipp dissent were based grounds, persuaded embodied right self-incrimination, 'to remain unless chooses speak unfettered exercise will, suffer no penalty silence.' Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 8, 84 1489, 1493, 12 653 (1964). As these opinions demonstrate, carries risks impeachment cross-examination; 'may door otherwise inadmissible damaging case,' McGautha California, 402 183, 213, 91 1454, 1470, 28 711 (1971), including, now, use confessions purposes would chief because defects. Harris New York, 401 222, 643, 'it thought inconsistent enlightened administration require pros cons testify,' supra, U.S., 215, S.Ct., 1471, none deny itself pose dangers success accused's defense. 10 usually idea strength evidence, absolutely certain expected they effective They collapse under skillful persistent through fault fail impress honest reliable witnesses. addition, sometimes compelled call hostile prosecution own.2 Unless provides discovery depositions apparently not,3 unlikely prove entirely favorable. 11 uncertainties, necessary helpful cause. Rather risk taking stand, might prefer point, putting off value realistically assessed. Yet, make 'in will.' Section exacts price silence keeping first.4 This, think, casts heavy burden unconditional stand.5 words, 'cuts (to silent) making assertion costly.' Griffin 380 609, 614, 85 1229, 1233, 14 106 (1965).6 reflect state interest preventing testimonial influence, regard sufficient override trial.7 imply there coloring conform gone before. But our adversary system reposes judgment credibility jury. Pressuring foreclosing refuses, constitutionally permissible ensuring honesty. It fails into account real legitimate concerns motivate silence. And compel wholly truthful defendant, who decline reasons, subject cross-examination time yet clear. For reasons hold 40 2403 insofar all. II 13 closely infringement due process defined Ferguson Georgia, 365 570, 81 756, 783 (1961). There reviewed Georgia providing competent oath, could unsworn statement permit aid eliciting questions. deprived "the guiding step proceedings him,' Powell Alabama, 287 45, 69, 53 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158, within imposed Fourteenth Amendment.' 572, 758. same said 40—2403. important tactical well matter right. By lawyer without opportunity evaluate actual worth restricts particularly counsel—in planning Furthermore, keep entirely, professional want thereby counsel' timing critical element While nothing say here curtails way ordinary power set proof, restricted whether, course presenting defense, Petitioner, failing makes harmless Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 17 705 (1967), 15 reversed remanded further opinion. ordered. 16 Judgment remanded. STEWART joins Part opinion, concurs 18 Chief BURGER, whom BLACKMUN REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 19 example Court's confusing approve demands policy—if I legislator, example—I vote like strikes today. accept Constitution forbids statute. 20 Of course, more convenient defer knows fare. token, able adjust matter. No seriously challenged absolute exclude accused, courtroom obvious purpose get minimize prospect 'tailor' version fit others said; seems somewhat odd give speak, since possible courtroom, common parties. 21 Fifth Amendment admittedly unsupported authority withstand analysis. 'be himself.' undisputed fact himself, Nor authorized encouraged draw perhaps unwarranted inferences silence, (1965). clearly compulsion contempt (1964), nor procedure significant faced stand—the knowledge absence force lead convict. Cases Spevack Klein, 385 511, 625, 574 Gardner Broderick, 392 273, 88 1913, 1082 (1968), involving loss employment disbarment therefore inapposite. That end 22 However, distorts both context content intimating forced difficult point conclusion But, pointed out last Term '(a)lthough right, dimensions, follow whichever chooses, token always forbid choose.' 1470. Indeed, 'choice' sustained far here, exerted considerable avoid possibile imposition death penalty. Williams Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 26 446 (1970). pressure here. majority's rationale absurd result finally wishes retires deliberations, for, cause.' Even 'prefer assessed.' short, difficulty hard privilege. Perhaps easier evidence. not. 'burden' cast given time. cases made hardly dimension. 23 deprives fares better, demonstrates. amounts rules advantageous way. forbidding ask questions restrict options bear remote relationship goal testimony. Yet contend universal prohibited waives relevant matters decides certainly inhibits choices counsel, never reaffirmed Term. 711. Countless interfere counsel.' explain why differs those rules. 24 reflects true, unspoken, decision; view invalid presently system. differences procedures among provide occasion condemnation 25 issue great except erodes policy allowing diversity method experiment innovate, retreat find taken wrong path. Long ago, Brandeis spoke need let 'a single courageous State' try try. Ice Co. Liebmann, 285 262, 311, 52 371, 386, 76 747 (1932) (dissenting opinion); see Fay 332 261, 296, 67 1613, 1631, 2043 (1947) (Jackson, J.). faltering condition machinery singularly inappropriate throttle essential search improvement. REHNQUIST, THE CHIEF JUSTICE 27 invalidation stated repugnance self-incrimination counsel's plan presentation regulating proof trials another raise issues bearing application done so. Brooks took infringed State. Whatever operation situations, assert self-incrimination—a retained inviolate throughout 29 creates dominant role indicated Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963), establish fundamental assistance previously decided elevates impresario respect decisions repeatedly primarily entrusted court. See, e.g., Thiede Utah Territory, 159 510, 519, 62, 237 (1895); Nelson 415 483, 487 (CA5 1969), cert. denied, 396 1060, 751, 754 (1970); Horowitz Bokron, 337 Mass. 739, 151 N.E.2d 480 (1958); Small 165 Neb. 381, N.W.2d 712 (1957). notion Sixth allows overrule stands head understanding counsel. Defense sits side over conduct advise various available limits existing procedure. 31 understand, agree with, circumstances conferred counseled not, terms violation suggests dimension inconceivable me preference prevail contrary ruling crucial particular time, advised otherwise—wishes desires Logically benefit today's conducting waived insists advice appearance, situation notes accommodation between Since sequestered while testifying, limited testify, applies evenhandedly prosecuting one; he, too, perfectly true silent, detract evident fairness effort accommodate conflicting policies. 33 responds fear parties, allowed disinterested testified, shape events oath groundless, importance denigrated vague generalities 'our jury.' Ante, 611. Assuredly common-law charge confides body determination truth falsity each witness. instructed reaching verdict militate desirability, constitutionality, additional inhibitions perjury nonparty part afforded examples inhibitions. effectuation accomplished too high price, rationally dispelled loose assertions about 34 strong sanction history precedent court, think temptation perjury, violate Amendment. affirm below. enacted 1887 provided defendants appears Code Annotated follows: '§ 40—2402. Competency defendant.—In indictments, presentments, proceedings, party thereto may, request, otherwise, therein. Failure testify—Order testimony.—The failure request create presumption desiring case.' instant apt illustration. After rested, requested permission local police cross-examine surrounding lineup. subpoenaed motion, your him.' 40—2428 provides: 'The manner prescribed civil notice district attorney.' recent Appeals holds deposition. Craig Tenn.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 190 precludes concerning matters, preclude rebuttal Arnold 139 Tenn. 674, 202 S.W. 935 (1918), testified direct. rebuttal. lightened sequestered. Smartt 112 539, 80 586 (1904). apparent attempt symmetry, latitude designating choosing victim investigating officer. distinction, share Thus, secured defendant. suggest initial constitutes altogether clear regards minimally important. long waived, Martin 157 383, 479 (1928), offer waiver accepted

Category: 0