Document: 449 U.S. 341 101 S.Ct. 654 66 L.Ed.2d 549 John Gregory WATKINS, Petitioner,v.Dewey SOWDERS, Warden. James Willard SUMMITT, Petitioner, v. Dewey Nos. 79-5949, 79-5951. Argued Nov. 10, 1980. Decided Jan. 13, 1981. Syllabus Held: A state criminal court is not required by the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to conduct a hearing out jury's presence whenever defendant contends that witness' identification him was arrived at improperly. Pp. 345-349. (a) Where evidence issue, no such special considerations as exist where issue voluntariness confession presented-an involuntary being inadmissible both because it likely be unreliable and society's aversion forced confessions, even if true, Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 12 908-justify departure from presumption juries will follow trial court's instructions. It reliability primarily determines its admissibility, proper evaluation under judge's instructions very task our system must assume can perform. 346-348. (b) There merit contention vigorous full cross-examination in jury witnesses possible improprieties pretrial identifications inconsistent with due process law. While "predicament" always presented when lawyer decides on ask question may produce an answer unfavorable his client, does inevitably require abandonment time-honored device best suited determine trustworthiness testimonial evidence. 348-349. (c) judicial determination outside admissibility often advisable and, some circumstances, these cases, constitutionally necessary, Constitution requires per se rule compelling procedure every case. P. 349. 608 F.2d 247, affirmed. Frank W. Heft, Jr., Louisville, Ky., for petitioners. Victor Fox, Lexington, respondents. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 These consolidated argument decision Court Appeals this Court, present whether compelled 2 * A. 3 Watkins, petitioner No. convicted Kentucky attempting rob Louisville liquor store. On night January 11, 1975, four men entered store, one whom asked pack cigarettes. Walter Smith, employee turned around get cigarettes, said "[t]his hold-up." Donald Goeing, part owner had been stocking soft-drink cooler, he heard those words, towards robbers. The man who spoken thereupon fired two shots him, striking arm, other region heart. then fled. 4 That Smith Goeing described gunman police. Two days later, police conducted lineup consisting three men, Watkins. identified Watkins gunman. same day, took Goeing's hospital bed, shot him. charged first-degree robbery assault. 5 At subsequent prosecution called witnesses. They assailant but were about or showup. Watkins' counsel, however, cross-examined length officer. He testified taken "at time there Mr. going survive incident." counsel officer showup through introduced pictures lineup. For defense, they pool hall another witness store seen Finally, himself innocence. 6 appeal, trial, argued constitutional obligation admissible. Supreme rejected argument. Relying Ray Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 482, 483 (1977), " '[a]lthough we are holding prior introduction testimony would have preferred course follow, persuaded failure done so reversal appellant's conviction.' 565 630, 631 (1978). found procedures "fail[ed] raise any impermissible suggestiveness" "was way prejudiced." Ibid. 7 unsuccessfully sought writ habeas corpus United States District Western Kentucky. held that, "although suppression hearings preferable, hold them conviction."1 also admission neither nor violated standards. 8 Sixth Circuit affirmed Court's judgment like ruled need jury. Turning itself, cited Stovall 388 293, 87 1967, 18 1199, authority "[g]iven seriousness wounds necessary case." Summitt Bordenkircher, 252. federal appellate admissible trial. B 9 Summitt, 79-5951, rape. Late July 20, 1974, prosecutrix into car occupied driven isolated location, raped returned her own car. next day she reported crime police, rapist, looked volumes photographs files, without identifying her. later station, examined more pictures. "after short pointed defendant's picture said: 'This me. There's doubt it, Jimbo, me.' In addition officer, stepfather prosecutrix's examination photographs, extensive cross-examination. 10 "no error refusal semblance suggestiveness procedure." 548, (1977). Kentucky, error. Appeals, case, 247. 11 We granted certiorari consider claim asserted petitioners throughout their proceedings. Sub nom. Bordenkircher 445 926, 100 1312, 63 759. II before us not, course, acts prudently prudence has emphasized many decisions Courts most which various ways admonished courts use procedure.2 here, rather, Amendment. 13 urging affirmative answer, first cite cases right postindictment lineup, e. g., Wade, 218, 1926, 1149, procedure, absence defective deprive law, 1199. analogize 908, enunciated "to fair reliable voluntariness," id., 377, S.Ct., 1781, declared unconstitutional New York gave what practice unreviewable discretion decide voluntary. 14 contend Denno established raised. If follows, argue, similar propriety questioned. 15 Even assumed did establish asserted,3 petitioners' fail, analogous now us. reject usual relied upon issues according instructions, peculiar problems presents. while unreliable, 'strongly felt attitude society important human values sacrificed agency government, securing conviction, wrings accused against will.' Id., 385, 1785, quoting Blackburn Alabama, 361 199, 206-207, 80 274, 279, 242. concluded "may find difficult understand policy forbidding reliance coerced, true confession. . Objective consideration conflicting concerning circumstances becomes [jury's] implicit findings become suspect." U.S., 382, 1783. 16 justify Manson Brathwaite, 432 98, 113-114, 97 2243, 2252, 53 140; ex rel. Kirby Sturges, 510 397, 402-404 (CA7 1975) (Stevens, J.). And judge Indeed, demonstrate, only duty admitted assess Thus Brathwaite approvingly quoted Judge Leventhal's statement 17 '[w]hile significant evidence, still unlike factor goes heart-the 'integrity'-of adversary process. 'Counsel cross-examine argue summation factors causing doubts accuracy identification-including reference suggestibility countervailing alibi.' 114, n. 14, 2253, Clemons States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 48, 408 1230, 1251 (1968) (concurring opinion) (footnote omitted). 19 inadequate these. assert deterred lawyers cross-examining vigorously fully cases. point specific instances thus deterred, record reveals identity was, effective, active extended. Nonetheless, rely passage supra, referred 20 "the predicament Wade's himself-realizing unfairness sole means attack unequivocal courtroom identification, having probe dark attempt discover reveal unfairness, bolstering government bringing dwelling identification." 240-241, 1939. 21 petitioners, attribute undue significance passage. Wade than demonstration stemming improperly excluded, based logically excluded well. 22 "predicament," chooses call client. Yet, justice, considered effective ascertain truth.4 decline 23 advisable. necessary. But Accordingly, judgments 24 Affirmed. 25 BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 26 holds each instant "fair hearing," 1780, 908 (1964), eyewitness remand accord hearing. freely conceding "judicial [and i]n necessary," ante, "a case," ibid. I dissent. my view, mandates defendant, respective trials below, proffered directed impermissibly suggestive. flaw reasoning lies implicate "special considerations" "justify instructions." Ante, 347. Surely ordinarily cure erroneous powerful separate byJackson confessions equally applicable Because conclude case properly admitted, see 376-377, further 27 least since 1149 (1967), recognized inherently suspect qualities evidence.1 particular attributes First, notoriously unreliable: 28 "The vagaries well-known; annals law rife mistaken identification. Frankfurter once 'What worth uncontradicted? strangers proverbially untrustworthy. hazards formidable number records English American trials. recent-not brutalities ancient procedure.' Case Sacco Vanzetti 30 (1927)." 228, 1933 29 111-112, 2251, 140 troublesome characteristic evidence: driving force behind 218 [87 1149] Gilbert California, 263 1951, 1178] (1967) (right post-indictment lineup), Stovall, all decided concern Usually testify encounter total stranger emergency emotional stress. recollection distorted easily actions police." 31 guard "dangers inherent identification," 235, 1936, lineups, 236-237, 1936,2 tainted suggestive confrontation lacking adequate indicia reliability, 2253. "Thus, companion reflect hear unless aspects reliability." 112, 2252. An thrust Manson, therefore, prevent impairment decisionmaking 32 Second, despite unreliability, much impact juries. Juries seem receptive to, inclined discredit, states saw commit crime.3 33 "[E]yewitness believed jurors, especially offered high level confidence, though confidence related all. All points rather strikingly conclusion almost nothing convincing live takes stand, finger says 'That's one!' "4 34 juries, regardless reliability,5 virtually inadmissible, should know See 2251. certainly resulting prejudice cannot erased generally E. Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony 189-190 (1979); Devlin, Report Secretary State Home Department Departmental Committee Evidence Identification Criminal Cases 149-150 (1976). contrary cavalierly dismisses unreliability effect juries-two led mandate hearing" safeguard Denno. 35 Any purported distinction between plainly specious. Jackson, invalidated whereby instructed confession6 disregard involuntary. struck down determined second allowed refused curative applied 'the exclusionary rules permitting submitted jury.' 1783, Meltzer, Involuntary Confessions: Allocation Responsibility Between Jury, U.Chi.L.Rev. 317, 327 (1954).7 36 purposes central apposite. stated, today notes, 347, "that forbids probable obtained manner deemed coercive." 385-386, 1785. "because 386, 1785.8 Third, sensitive nature assure ignore 37 "Under fact solidly implanted mind, confession, position false.[9] finds involuntary, jury-indeed, it-then accordance instructions? lingering sufficiency unconsciously lay rest resort confession? Will uncertainty prove guilt beyond reasonable actually result acquittal knows given truthful confession." 388, 1786 38 Similar little potentially 350-352. which, totality create 'a substantial likelihood irreparable misidentification,' 116, 2254, Simmons 390 384, 88 967, 971, 1247 (1968), custodial determined, Washington, 431 181, 188, 1814, 1819, 52 238 (1977); cf. North Carolina Butler, 441 369, 374-375, 99 1755, 1758, 60 286 (1979) (waiver). 2251; Foster 394 440, 442-443, 89 1127, 1128, 402 (1969); 228-229, 232-235, 1932, 1934; 302, 1972, 1199 (1967). third, extraordinary able instruction evidence.10 To expect engage collective mental gymnastic segregating ignoring utterly unrealistic. bald assertion, protect accused, untrue confessions. 39 Nor assumed, has, circumstance. here voluntariness. Cross-examination, affects weight credibility evidence,11 ineffective wrong tool purging jurors' minds. scientific suggests unduly jurors. Thus, give erroneously weight, however skillful (1979). Cross-examination sense normally employed best, might diminish accords is, continue it. 40 clear peradventure, submit, dangers just evidence-its unusual jury-a determination" mandated. obviously precludes convicting supra.12 sure verdict improper practical matter, place. expediently accomplish purpose.13 believe less. 41 large distinguished group shares view. lower virtual unanimity encouraged type petitioners.14 As already noted, too "[a] necessary." think follows congruence desirability evolving standards justice15 proffers sufficient colorable See, Fisher Driber, 546 18, (CA3 1976). 42 clearly shown, front test undoubted inhibiting fear rigorous questioning hostile strengthen eyewitnesses' impress 1939.16 event, could succeeded foreclosing afforded proceedings determination," admitted. unreported. Mitchell, 540 1163 1976); Cranson, 453 123 (CA4 1971); Haskins 433 836 (CA10 1970); Ranciglio, 429 228 (CA8 Allison, 414 407 (CA9 1969); Broadhead, 413 1351 1230 (en banc). Fifth left matter district courts. 1275 Federal commended courts, Nassar Vinzant, 519 798 (CA1 1975); Phipps Follette, 428 912 (CA2 1970), Pinto Pierce, 389 31, 32, 192, 193, 31: "This never jury, circumstances. [B]ecause disputed judge, prudent voluntary suitable jury." Professor Wigmore put "[cross-examination] greatest legal engine ever invented discovery truth." J. Wigmore, § 1367 (Chadbourn rev. 1974). produced enormous reservoir scholarly writings, solid empirical research. bibliography literature, 237-247 "[S]uggestibility context identification" lineups. U.S, 1936. in-court made prosecutor establishes "by [was] observation identificatio[n]." 240, "[J]uries unfortunately [identification] ." 120, 2255 (1977) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting) 8-19; Wall, Eye-witness 19-23 (1965); Hammelmann & Williams, Parades-II, 1963 Crim.L.Rev. 545, 550. Yarmey, Psychology (emphasis supplied). Loftus exhaustively canvasses statistical psychological persuasively supports "overwhelmingly influential." 9. original), observes "[j]urors known accept pointing far outweighed innocence." (footnotes omitted) supplied), concludes: "Juries sufficiently aware dangers. 'positive recognition well intended uninterested persons commonly accepted alibi convincing,' untrustworthy, 'taken average juryman absolute proof.' Distinguishing basis persuasive. itself decisive deliberations. Such less ignore. instances, peculiarly leave indelible juror's mind. 7, infra. noted: 'Due coerced coercion tried unprejudiced trier, pious fictions indulged useless juror uninfluenced truth falsity exclusion ought emasculated admitting giving knows, obeyed.' 382-383, Morgan, Some Problems Proof Under Anglo-American System Litigation 104-105 (1956). Of misbehavior subtlety invariably wrenched force. indirect methods interrogation seek elicit warrant involuntariness. Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 301, 1682, 1690, 64 297 (1980) (interrogation includes reasonably incriminating response"); Brewer 430 387, 1232, 51 424 (Sixth violation). 6, supra. eyewitnesses victims crimes. Not dual status affect make curable Clearly, received 15th nonvictim subject thereby raising possibility harmless doubt. stated: "We content good element untrustworthiness customary grist mill. susceptible measure intelligently questionable feature." concerned until preliminary done, deleterious deliberations operate: "[I]t satisfies rights permit adjudicating 1786. errs event deciding premise request requiring place, substantially go far. Brief Petitioners 43-45. convictions entitled Moreover, raised 123, 127 1971), cert. denied, 406 909, 92 1607, 821 (1972). adding layer complexity litigation, understandable, supplant accused's right. proffer minimum quantum showing eliminate frivolous requests. 22. rel.Fisher (requiring motion frivolous); 1275, 1279 (CA5 1977) (evidentiary critical facts dispute); 1163, 1166 1976) (defendant "requested Neil Biggers"), 1099, 1119, 547 798, 802, (CA1) (commending presence), 423 898, 96 202, 46 132 (1975); 125-126 ("evidentiary required" suppress); 836, 838 1970) presence); 230 (CA8) ("trial court, "), 400 959, 91 358, 268 (1970); 912, 913, (CA2) ("commend[ing] practice" 151, 146 407, 410 (CA9) 396 968, 90 446, 443 1351, 1359 1969) (pretrial approved), 1017, 581, 508 34, 1237 banc) disclosure prosecutor's evidence), 964, 1318, 567 (1969). stated that" "is preferable 250 (CA6 1979). addition, Commonwealth convicted, appears motion, search Ky.Rule Crim.Proc. 9.78. Moore 569 150, 153 (Ky.1978), after constituted Previous reached conclusion. Francis 468 287 (App.1971). Harper Virginia Board Elections, 383 663, 669, 86 1079, 1082, 169 (1966) (equal protection); Trop Dulles, 356 86, 100-101, 78 590, 597, 596 (1958) (plurality Warren, C. J.) (Eighth Amendment). say, does, simple reason cold questions asked.

Category: 0