Document: 366 U.S. 1 81 S.Ct. 941 6 L.Ed.2d 84 Willie Lee STEWART, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 143. Argued Feb. 21, 1961. Decided April 24, Mr. Edward L. Carey, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Carl W. Belcher, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. The Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution provides in unequivocal terms that no person may 'be compelled any criminal case be a witness against himself.' To protect this right Congress has declared failure defendant testify his own defense 'shall not create presumption him.'1 Ordinarily, effectuation protection is relatively simple matter—if chooses take stand, comment or argument about permitted.2 But where reason it becomes necessary try particular charge more than one time, complicated problem presented. For choose remain silent at first trial and then decide stand subsequent trial. When occurs, questions arise as propriety second based upon defendant's previous This turns such question. 2 Petitioner been tried three times District Court Columbia an indictment charging he had committed first-degree murder under felony-murder statute.3 In all trials, petitioner's chief insanity but, on each occasion, jury rejected returned verdict guilty which Columbia's mandatory death sentence imposed.4 After two petitioner did testify, convictions sentences were set aside basis errors Appeals found prevented proper consideration by jury.5 At third trial, apparent effort bolster contention insanity, was placed asked number counsel—a maneuver obviously made purpose giving opportunity directly observe functioning mental processes hope exhibition would persuade them memory comprehension defective. Petitioner's responses these aptly described court below 'gibberish without meaning.'6 3 Upon cross-examination, prosecutor attempted noticeable success demonstrate irrational answers given furtherance plan feign weakness exist. end, statements allegedly arrest, apparently surprise provoke sensible response. continued talk same manner used direct examination, concluded cross-examination with following remarks form questions: 'Willie, you other occasions.' And, 'This time have gone isn't it, Willie?'7 4 moved immediately mistrial ground highly prejudicial inform trials. defended actions 'is fact Jury entitled know.' judge agreed prosecutor, denied motion mistrial, proceeded, culminating sentence. On appeal, heard nine members sitting en banc affirmed 5—4 vote8—the majority concluding issue controlled decision Raffel v. States,9 minority our Grunewald States.10 We granted certiorari consider whether error deny circumstances.11 5 Court, Government concedes question put prior failures cannot justified Raffel, Grunewald, Court's decisions. concession, we accept proper, rests Government's recognition intimated there basic inconsistency between silence taking can impeach testimony elects give later case, relied below, involved situation sat face government agent previously admissions pointing guilt. took truth offered witness. Under circumstances, held Raffel's could shown order discredit theory itself constituted admission agent's testimony. result properly admitted specific Here, hand, entire 'testimony' comprised nothing meaning' impeach. Any attempt therefore related only demeanor and, indeed, expressly rested its conclusion view prosecution test genuineness sort 'demeanor-evidence' why trials.12 if read standing proposition, permissible every instance, whenever takes necessarily puts into issue.13 quite law since conflict precise holding case.14 Despite however, persists conviction should upheld, arguing harmless affected jury's verdict. grounds: first, even improper question; secondly, hear question, inferred trial; finally, infer previously, inference adverse drawn from fact. grounds quickly disposed of. think justification ignoring part record showing mere conjecture might represents. Nor do believe reasonable argue trying failed trials when asked, Willie?' Indeed, will likelihood leading kind lies root long-established rule unless inference, drawn, factually true.15 Thus, must fall urges—that awareness prejudiced case. disposition requires statement few relevant facts 7 connection introduced evidence both disease defect, those are applied Columbia.16 issue, suffering manic depressive psychosis, shows tends fluctuate considerably manifestations time. defect intelligence level moronic class. went points, being directed acquit homicide product either defect.17 thus raised least different issues minds jury: simply feigning testimony; whether, not, condition fairly represented act charged indictment.18 8 deliberations issues. well thought likely elected out desperation brought gain acquittal Similarly, believed genuine, caused unlikely manifested active occasion homicide. Or, assumption, exhibit himself indicated worsening consequently, also commission acts indictment. There ways information improperly prosecution—we mentioned enough already, satisfy ourselves rejected. 9 final allowed sufficiently warrant granting request cautionary instructions. One answer brief. For, regarding possibility aware stresses emphasized reference instructions jury. During course recognizes danger increased instruction again attention testify. Plainly, obligation risk. entirely appropriate interests petitioner.19 10 conclude stand. doing so, agree point brief—that regrettable concurrent findings 36 jurors sufficient finally terminate system, man 12 presented them. deprived life until accorded him. That here prosecutor's questions. 11 Reversed. FRANKFURTER, whom HARLAN WHITTAKER join, dissenting. 13 draws account seems unreasonable. force what does relate, disparity almost hundred pages transcript that, fairness, hardly conveys place before must, therefore, rationally evaluated attributing influence now asked. 'In reviewing cases, particularly important appellate courts relive whole imaginatively extract episodes isolation abstract procedure. turn appeal quest promotes ends justice acquiesce low standards prosecution.' Johnson States, 318 189, 202, 63 549, 555, 87 L.Ed. 704 (concurring opinion). 14 What emerges transcript, outset, Stewart's killing Harry Honikman practically never issue. eyewitnesses who positively identified Stewart killer1 seriously challenged. A examined hands, shortly killing, gun unimpugned ballastic established fired lethal shots. fingerprint expert, unimpugned, linked killing. Nowhere their opening closing experienced counsel ask doubt killer: responsible because insane. 15 Insanity merely, says, defense; defense. His lawyer aptly: '(The prosecutor) knows I, anybody courtroom, insanity.'2 jury, told laymen behalf, reasoned said so. contested. If prejudice blindly assumed, but discovered record, some subtle train associations. 16 major six days: twelve calendar days. presenting eyewitnesses, ballistic experts, arresting investigating officers, etc.—ten witnesses all3 consumed day half. Thereafter, beginning running third, series witnesses—Stewart's cousin, landlady, friend, sister, employer, wife, neighbor, sister-in-law—all recounted behavior tending show unsoundness mind.4 These spanned period early childhood they painted what, say least, bizarre portrait. 17 them, believed, inter alia: (1) Stewart, child, threw food floor, ran away school, tore clothes off, cut up, roamed house night; (2) aunts brother unsound mind, often sit saliva mouths anything; (3) adult, once shot wife beat her while she pregnant; (4) punched hole ceiling fist another refrigerator door so hard broke it; (5) locked children family's room cold weather; threatened throw children, baby, window burning stove; done forcibly prevented; (6) insisted pushing through boarded front jumping porch repair; jumped window; rephew's toy piano (7) sexual relations sister-in-law husband's presence; (8) having employer get requested pay raise, kicked down brick wall constructing. Following testimony, portions military revealing medical discharge recommended after fight soldier, largely tests taken feeble-minded range. 18 day, cross-examined briefly. occupies fifteen eight-hundred-and-eighty-five-page minutes. Let sample quality meaninglessness: 19 'Q. your wife's name, Willie? A. You that. As far I am concerned, don't wife. any; can't name is. 20 Have ever married? wouldn't married. 21 mean Well, nobody married, my way understanding. 22 Do children? consider—I none. She some. some, guess leave her. concern, none want 23 know now? Looking you, know. 24 neme? 25 Who lawyer? mean, lawyer, concern.' 26 testified building in, white folks him supposed kill; considered master, situation; monkey, monkey tail; still remained see kill—his mind tells kill—and always going kill conquered; good upstairs so; talked God conquer everybody, master; hated everybody; shouldn't more. brief proceeded vein. questions, designed less elicit call forth revealingly intelligent response, sign understanding, grave estrangement pose, evoked wild unresponsive answers. closed dialogue: 27 me, Sure. too, you? another. master ain't stop me else. 28 Tell Willie, Dr. Williams? 29 Yes, E. Y. Williams. Why keep asking me? once, doctor. over again. 30 Deputy Marshall Ballinger? marshal. everything. care Everything talking it. 31 occasions. how many occasions, case—you 32 What? 33 stand; everything, you. 34 'Mr. Smithson (the prosecutor): all. 35 'The Witness: else me. Court: Carey (defense counsel), anything further? 37 Carey: all.' 38 Defense denied. qualified Williams, psychiatrist, expert Responsive hypothetical predicated army various instances odd lay witnesses, circumstances Honikman's Williams gave professional was, disease. He explained detail psychiatric significance quotient sixty-five, rating which, characterize moron. further typified manic-depressive psychosis use blackboard, diagrammed cyclic character examination 1953 yielded insufficient personal history base diagnosis, several occasions change psychotic. length afternoon morning fourth days 39 remaining large part, seven forward rebut insanity. Two experts neighbor friend known years seen regularly during preceding conduct presence, normal. An attendant Saint Elizabeths Hospital, late 1957 1958, model patient trouble, gotten along others, played cards checkers, Bible, etc. police lieutenant jail similarly activities four present Through exhibits file signed certain forms, written requests, sent numerous letters sister-in-law. regard testified, examinations Both psychiatrists malingering examinations. 40 It unnecessary describe greater witnesses. All cross-examined, considerable length. sixth addressed Neither exhaustive nor court's extended effect, unanswered, assigned error. retired, deliberated, guilty. 41 totality solicitous heavy us capital concerning class 'which affect substantial rights parties,' virtue Act Congress, duty disregard. Stat. 1181 (1919), 105, U.S.C. § 2111, U.S.C.A. 2111. light considerations, viewed determinative, whose sum—in context trial—convinces conjectures chimerical. 42 First, intelligibly answered finds nevertheless reached merely broad generalization 'such kind.' Such abstraction heart us. aspect, drew likely, overwhelmingly unlikely. 43 pressed persisted concentrate assertion repeated—when 'What?' dropped. setting most improbable, paid heed content such, inflated importance. just tail kill. appeared raving incoherent. course, demeanor, responses, subjects inquired into, plausibly focused. offending followed others—'You '* * Williams?' 'Do Marshal Ballinger?'—which absolutely content, except insofar prodded respond. regarded differently, attributed special event, assuming pondering inferences manifest madman, learned already elicited. knew Yet examination: 'Have oath?' answered: 'Not of.' 44 Even absorbed eye-catching spectacle unanswered answered, probable one. conceives knowledge testified. arises supposition indulged reasons testifying, conjectures, alternatives favorable defense—for example, insane, capriciously refused go stand—and fixed explanation sane earlier Perhaps, chain suppositions entertainable. links factor making implausible find here. 45 Finally, concededly impermissible questions—more accurately, single repeated witness' request—must perspective proceedings whole. Asked left six-day eighteen eight adverted to. They preceded startling accounts behavior, contemporaneous glaring display symptoms madness, two-day battle accoutered blackboard chalk—all sanity. weaves solidities gossamer assumptions attribute fleeting argumentative implications impact ponderous reverse impressively carries contrary meaning. pick threads weave cords sides—by defense—strong, cables furnished suppose noticed deductions, amounted whisper drowned compulsion ear-resounding striking example pursuing 46 More half-century ago, William H. Taft, reflecting wide experience became Chief Justice, laid courts: 47 provision favor strictly enforced, widened effect interest liberty citizen, led degree refinement upholding technicalities defendants, reversing render practical cases impatient. 48 highest authority country interposes bare technicality conviction, too much laxity administration proneness last resort judgments conviction.'5 49 convinced today's falls within weighty strictures. explain rejection sole consequent finding guilt, ground, matter influenced reversed here, respect system opponents system.6 encomia opinions showered functions values, fecklessness men women chosen make attribution unconsciously betrayed, sophisticates sometimes are, depreciation capacities run men. dissent judgment 50 CLARK, joins, 51 'had class,' laugh up sleeve today laughingstock law. makes guilt—each penalty—that 1953. year walked little grocery store bought bag potato chips soft drink, store, ordered bottle soda, pulled pistol killed eyes young daughter. hypotheticals interred view, persuasive cast validity determination. review fatal 52 printed partial, consists 400 pages. 'gibberish' comprises pages, representing perhaps minutes came Willie's counsel, replied, 'Did Honikman?' 'Well, talk. ahead yourself. trial? Go ahead. Don't 'Were time?' And 'I tried. tried.' With openings Government, No relating Then reversal: objection. identical words. Still you.' Thereafter excused witness, whereupon approached bench mistrial. curative instruction. Counsel trap, lain wait demanding nothing. demand 53 very night playing cards, exhibited slaying players, card game hour murder, a.m. 'he (Willie) seemed normal me.' aide St. Hospital guard arrest weeks perfectly normal; freely understood conversation; Bible dictionary, bid whist checkers 'model' prisoner. revealed mailed sister-in-law, April, October November, 1953; July, August, September 1954; October, November December, 1955; January, February March, 1956; 1957; forwarded $10 1954 1955. memo requests conferences officials. work pass actually hours working day-in day-out custody. cleaning, plumbing, continually engaged painting cell blocks throughout jail. son ill permission, granted, visit 'acted normal' period. fact, June However, stated hearing story background, decided suffered psychosis. psychiatrists, March 1953, 'perfectly normal.' freely, cooperatively 'average range intelligence.' Each malingering, i.e., illness. began addition, served enlistments Army 'illiterate mentally adequate.' 54 hypotheses due deference, unrealistic, completely absurd. crucial date 1958. uncontradicted evidence, detailed above, normality 1953—1958, assumes 'might' 'elected (gibberish) acquittal' previously; 'might thought' 'concluded homicide'; action 55 place, violent assumption solely especially response query oath. Moreover, impression verdicts. received 'you talk'—'You explain'—'Don't me,' got like occasions,' repetition, stand.' Using majority's speculative approach, resulted hung juries speculated nice distinctions demeanor.* faker. needed conclude. Discounting effects counsel's oaths, themselves alone, strike whatever former event thing happened there, certainly sufficient. this. wanted 'all none' 'all.' But, returning hypotheses, 'elected' concern Secondly, activity player. 'seemed How inactive beyond Every contrary—save psychiatrist—and inconclusive. five evidence—uncontradicted—was Lastly, worsening, relevancy 56 add brief, conceded 'was negligible importance government's case.' said, prejudicial. license concessions cases. contending, 'the question.' state attitude appear ridiculous. Its true position assume, does, noted focused emphasis overlooked judge.' long need, able, gymnastics supposes. 57 note adopt Government. says 'that approach regret tempered willingness indulge hypothesizing effectively remove concept persons offenses martial inquiry State, District, Possession Territory, shall, request, competent shall him.' 62 833, 3481, 3481. Wilson 149 60, 765, 650. 'Whoever, sound discretion, kills purposely, deliberate premeditated malice means poison, perpetrating attempting perpetrate offense punishable imprisonment penitentiary, prepetrating arson, defined section 22—401 22—402 Code, rape, mayhem, robbery, kidnapping, housebreaking armed using dangerous weapon, degree.' 22—2401. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 22—2404 Code provides: punishment electrocution.' erroneous 94 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 214 F.2d 879. prosecutor. 101 51, 247 42. 107 159, 160, 275 617, 618. excerpt typical: concern. couple days? look courtroom on. Did Honigman charged) before? haven't. murder? murder; know? reveals exchange Smithson: 617. 271 494, 566, 70 1054. 353 391, 77 963, 931. 363 818, 80 1266, 1516. petition objections alleged primary complained objections. reasoned: logical step supra, groundwork developing inherent difference trials.' 167, 625. credibility testifies. amount feigned perjurious, admissible. inconsistent reliance excuse refusal Since implication general credibility. III Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), 780. Wigmore quotes Chitty, Practice Law, 2d ed., III, 901, proposition: 'It rule, regards right, detect catch falsity, falsely assume pretend sworn differently proved not.' recognized principle. Berger 295 78, 84, 629, 631, 79 1314. 'disease' 'defect' manner: 'We sense capable improving deteriorating. deteriorating, congenital injury, residual physical disease.' stemmed responsibility prevails Durham 228, 862, A.L.R.2d 1430. practice, separate proceeding. See 24—301. 704, sustain point. objection all, choosing instead rest chances choice repeatedly Appeals, daughter transcription mother's corroborating daughter's remark bench, addition Mrs. Honikman, Three five, excerpts read. Administration Criminal Yale L.J. 1, (1905). See, e.g., Frank, Courts Trial (1949), cc. VIII, IX. surely questioning oaths.

Category: 0