Document: 529 U.S. 61117 F.3d 696 LEONARD PORTUONDO, SUPERINTENDENT, FISHKILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, PETITIONERv.RAY AGARD No. 98-1170. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued November 1, 1999 Decided March 6, 2000 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press. Syllabus Respondent was convicted on New York criminal charges after a trial required jury decide whether it believed testimony victim and her friend conflicting respondent. The prosecutor challenged respondent's credibility during summation, calling jury's attention fact respondent had opportunity hear all witnesses testify tailor his own accordingly. court rejected objection these comments violated right present at trial. After exhausting state appeals, filed petition for habeas corpus federal claiming, inter alia, prosecutor's Fifth Sixth Amendment rights confront accusers, Fourteenth due process. District denied petition, but Second Circuit reversed. Held: 1. did not violate rights. declines extend such rationale Griffin v. California, 380 609, which held court's instruction about defendant's refusal unconstitutionally burdened privilege against self-incrimination. As threshold matter, claims find no historical support. Griffin, moreover, poor analogue those claims. prohibited prosecution from urging do something permitted do, upon request must instruct count silence him. It reasonable expect comply with an because inferring guilt always "natural irresistible," id., 380; natural irresistible jury, evaluating relative defendant who testifies last, have mind weigh balance he has heard preceded In contrast suggested "evidence guilt," 615, this case concerned as witness. They were therefore accord Court's longstanding rule when takes stand, assailed like witness-a serves trial's truth-seeking function, Perry Leeke, 488 272, 282. That here generic rather than based specific indication tailoring does render them infirm. Nor they came summation point earlier Reagan 157 301, 304, upheld recitation interested-witness directed consider deep personal interest credibility. Reagan, case, rely evidence actual fabrication its application, nor come time could respond. Nevertheless, considered perfectly proper. Pp. 3-12. 2. also To extent process claim alleged burdening rights, been disposed by determination Amendments directly infringed. argues, however, improper comment presence law requires him present. points decision Doyle Ohio, 426 610, impeach post-Miranda warnings carry implicit "assurance will penalty." Id., 618. No promise impunity statute requiring trial, there authority whatever proposition impairment credibility, if any, caused mandatory violates 12-14. 117 696, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO OFAPPEALS FOR SECOND CIRCUIT Scalia, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, concurring judgment, Breyer, Ginsburg, dissenting opinion, Souter, Opinion Justice Scalia Court. 1 we constitutional prosecutor, call 2 * Respondent's 19 sodomy assault counts 3 weapons ultimately down determination. victim, Nessa Winder, friend, Breda Keegan, testified physically assaulted, raped, orally anally sodomized threatened both women handgun. Winder engaged consensual vaginal intercourse. He further argument struck once face. raping threatening either woman During defense counsel charged Keegan lying. similarly focused witnesses. She stressed outcome prior felony conviction, bad acts. argued "smooth slick character " answer everything," App. 45, part "sound[ed] rehearsed," 48. Finally, over objection, remarked: 4 "You know, ladies gentlemen, unlike benefit has, witnesses, gets sit listen testifies. 5 . 6 "That gives you big advantage, doesn't it. You get think what am I going say how it? How fit into evidence? 7 8 "He's smart man. never said stupid" used everything advantage." 49. 9 counsel's last stated status witness simply matter fact, entire advantage afforded him, "may fairly commented on." 54. 10 one anal two third-degree possession weapon. On direct appeal, convictions weapon affirmed remaining convictions. People Agard, 199 Div. 2d 401, 606 N. Y. S. 239 (2d Dept. 1993). Appeals leave appeal. 83 868, 635 E. 298 (1994). 11 then relief court, accusers. claimed unpublished order. A divided panel reversed, holding Fifth, Sixth, (1997), rehearing denied, 159 98 (1998). We granted certiorari. 526 1016 (1999). II 12 contends ability fabricate unlawfully confronted see Illinois Allen, 397 337 (1970); Pointer Texas, 400 (1965), behalf, Rock Arkansas, 483 44 (1987). Attaching cost impeachment exercise was, asserts, unconstitutional. 13 boils type 609 involved testify. instructed free take failure deny explain facts within knowledge tending indicate truth prosecution's case. comment, "solemniz[ing] accused him," "cuts [against self-incrimination] making assertion costly." 614. 14 decline context. initial foundation, neither 1791, Bill Rights adopted, 1868 when, according our jurisprudence, extended strictures States. defendants brought justice 1791 largely obviated need here. Defendants routinely asked (and agreed) provide pretrial statement peace detailing events dispute. See Moglen, Privilege British North America: Colonial Period Amendment, Against Self-Incrimination 109, 112, 114 (R. Helmholz et al. eds. 1997). If their story trial-where typically spoke conducted personally, without counsel, J. Goebel & T. Naughton, Law Enforcement York: Study Criminal Procedure (1664-1776), p. 574 (1944); A. Scott, Virginia 79 (1930)-differed statement, contradiction noted. Levy, Origins Its Critics, Cardozo L. Rev. 821, 843 (1997). Moreover, evidence, since disqualified testifying under oath. Wigmore, Evidence 579 (3d ed. 1940). 15 begin fall disuse until 1830s, Alschuler, Peculiar Historical Perspective, Self-Incrimination, supra, 198, first State make competent Maine, 1864, 579, 701. response developments, some attempted limit sworn 1841, 1869 (1904); Ky. Stat., ch. 1646 (1899); Tenn. Code Ann., 4, 5601 (1896). Although majority impose restriction, suggest took affirmative step forbidding testimony. dissent faults us "call[ing] up instance eighteenth- nineteenth-century facilitated tailored testimony." Post, (opinion J.). burden dissent, assert unconstitutionality practice, improper. cannot even produce practice so much Griffin. See, e.g., Cassidy, 236 Conn. 126-127, 672 899, 907-908 (1996); Buckey, 424 Mich. 8-15, 378 W. 432, 436-439 (1985); Jenkins 374 581, 583-584 (D. 1977). absence cuts favor (as asserts) only possible believe reading prosecutors suddenly realized commenting unique good idea. Evidently, along objection; sparked notion commentary might problematic. 16 Lacking support entirely analogue, several reasons. What do. hold proving assistance impaired counting him-and effect. Carter Kentucky, 450 288 (1981). enough since, observed inference irresistible." U.S., 615. refuse out fear look clever 'that prejudice jury.' Ibid. (quoting Modesto, 62 Cal. 436, 453, 398 P.2d 753, 763 (1965) (en banc)). By contrast, thing requires) evaluate giving effect testify; else quite impossible) while blotting sitting listening Thus, principle asks adopt differs adopted following respects: prohibits inviting entitled do; practically impossible.1 17 Second, guilt." 615 (emphasis added); Robinson, 485 25, 32 (1988) (" 'Griffin judge suggesting treat substantive guilt' Baxter Palmigiano, 425 308, 319 (1976)). witness, "his impeached witness." Brown 356 148, 154 (1958). "[W]hen [a defendant] assumes role rules generally apply witnesses-rules serve function trial-are applicable well." 282 (1989). 305 (1895). 18 Geders 80, 87-91 (1976), treated differently insofar sequestration orders concerned, period denies counsel. With respect issues special treatment accorded. Anderson, 447 231 (1980), illustrates point. There first-degree murder cross-examination again closing argument, self-defense would waited weeks report killing occurred. strikingly similar presented here, prearrest self-incrimination "a person facing arrest remain silent speak later can him." 236. noted clear protects silence, 236, n. 2, that, assuming does, constitutionally permissible. "[T]he Constitution forbid 'every government-imposed choice discouraging rights.' Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 17, 30 (1973)). Once 'subject impeaching just witness.' Jenkins, 235-236 Grunewald 353 391, 420 (1957)). Indeed, Brooks Tennessee, 406 605 (1972), arguing jury-which include here-is preferred means counteracting found unconstitutional Tennessee's attempt defeat outset all. requirement, said, impermissibly forced determine best interest. 610. expressed awareness, danger presented. antidote, heavy-handed rule, more nuanced "adversary system[, which] reposes judgment jury." 611. adversary system surely envisions-indeed, requires-that allowed bring aware of. 20 contend impermissible "generic" tailoring. Such claims, "does distinguish guilty innocent ones." But approved before. example, "[t]he [the result suit should weighing determining far extent, all, worthy credit." 304. application; it, least, delineate innocent. Like set forth consideration assessing which, turn, assisted defendant. deemed not, force, demonstrate defendant, among defendants, infirm.2 21 held, contends, made, cross-examination, leaving reply. F.3d, 708, 6. significant distinction demonstrated Reagan. end rested, here.3 22 Our structure, close prosecution, regularly forces predict say. explained job "closing try anticipate [he could] arguments [would] making." 25-27. permitted-a instruction, closed-is long tradition continues day. Jones, 587 F.2d 802 (CA5 1979); Hill, 470 361 (CADC 1972); Wright, Federal Practice 501, (1982). given very Tr. 834 ("A course interested jurors wish keep weight testimony").4 absolutely nothing dissent's contention purposes validity attacks "the between critical," post, 12. 23 sum, reason depart treating same witness's account accordingly, threat presents integrity different doing listening. Allowing courtroom provides appropriate-and indeed, inability sequester sometimes essential-to central discover truth. III 24 address Circuit's Of already Cf. Graham Connor, 490 386, 395 (1989) (where "provides explicit textual source protection generalized 'substantive process,' guide analyzing [the] claims"). 25 Crim. Proc. 260.20 (McKinney 1993); 340.50 1994), presence. asserts 610 holding. Doyle, being arrested selling marijuana, received Miranda chose silent. At trials, stand sold "framed." each why related version arrested. defendants' contained 26 reconsider "[W]e consistently where government induced implicitly assuring Fletcher Weir, 455 603, (1982) (per curiam). had, specifically option speaking silent-and gone former possible, think, 27 contains element unfairness worse existed Doyle: Whereas avoid choosing silent, (he Though certain, see, Aiken, 45 394, 397, 274 (1978) ("[A] punishable death may, voluntary willful waive every stage trial"), shall assume sake true. is, accusation (or suspicion) crucial factor defendants-in jurisdictions compulsory attendance requirements-frequently absent themselves intend give knowledge, rarity. Many established elements procedure deprive advantages otherwise possess-for requirement plead charge before, after, in. consequences seem worse. 28 29 For foregoing reasons, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. NOTES: seeks place position defending inferences invite. 10-11. thing. (in sentence note appended) invitation permissible alternative respects substantially sole support, Similarly, infer silence. 8-10. inevitable, prohibiting (while simultaneously asking veracity testimony) demanding impossible-producing rebut asserting prosecutorial went beyond pointing actually worth inquiring subtle proposed permit latter. course; nor, authority. Drawing line availability useful practicable. second described above, taking stern disapproval (it "tarnishes less guilty," 2; suffers "incapacity individualized truth-finding trials," 4; "when fair 'insolubly ambiguous' innocence guilt, urge construe bare invocation defendant," 3) hardly comports praising "carefully restrained moderate position" monstrous allowing rest allow remark time-even summation-on convenient "fit" others. 2-3. "general tailoring" forbidden. 3. believes "invite convict basis conduct guilt" bounds, ibid.-or least bounds summation-comments focusing acknowledges, likely "sheer innocence" anything else. 10. maintains 301 (1895), inapposite question statutory testify, 304 (citing Act Mar. 16, 1878, Stat. 30, amended U.S.C. 3481). curious take. Griffin-the controls here-relied almost exclusively issue defining contours quoting description, reasons right, Wilson 149 60 (1893), said: "If words 'Fifth Amendment' substituted 'act' 'statute,' spirit Clause reflected." 613-614. eminently questionable manner exegesis, Mitchell 314, 336 (1999) (Scalia, dissenting); centerpiece one's denying construed Griffin) meaning Constitution. interpretation plausible understanding application Griffin: permitted, interpreting rendered void. hand, relied shakier well. hard understand Stevens reconciles unquestionable propriety standard conclusion tailor, although constitutional, "demean[s] adversary] process" "should discouraged." judgment). decision, event, addressed desirable sound practice. latter question, well desirability putting proper perspective judicial left courts, appellate courts review work. 31 whom Breyer joins, judgment. While persuaded crossed high separates error-even serious error-from kind fundamental conviction aside, cf. Rose Lundy, 509, 543-544 (1982), register my disagreement endorsement summation. 33 "to him" reflects individual dignity reinforces presumption survives verdict returned. demeaned process, respect, ignored presumption. Clearly discouraged validated. 34 final conclusion, join, scrutiny course, judges power prevent juries instructions necessity, justifications, 35 Accordingly, agree Ginsburg written, concur 36 Souter dissenting. 37 today transforms automatic disposition. guilt. receiving warrant attack Both decisions stem "insolubly ambiguous" 617, unfairly encumber ambiguity 38 Ray Agard attended duty, One evident explanation coherence ruled out: telling know figure tell potent lies remains exculpatory tell. 39 today's imposes justified, maintains, truth." ante, 13. ideally search truth, advances search. permits ones. Every attend Const., Amdt. grants, 13, tried. follows equally susceptible issue, tied testimony, tarnishes guilty. measure accusation, broadside fired submitted An irrebuttable observation sort 40 carefully use mere impugning wishes accuse particular would, Appeals, so. 98, 99 (CA2 1998). challenge overall general, launch general 709; Chacko, 169 140, 150 1999). below rein solely situations occurred accusation. 41 Appeals' correct light Doyle. Those 617. sure, categorically exempt costs associated prerogatives. trials places demands defendants. justify interests advanced respond, invite Where yield compensating benefit, justification imposing burden. 42 served permitting accusations tailoring-- wholly tailoring-as cross-examination. Some doubt false calculated having display signals untrustworthiness province detect interpret. offered slightest degree undermines help essence truth: Is lying cover truthfully narrating innocence?1 43 addition incapacity launched entails simple preventing answering charge. problem especially pronounced instant Under law, bolster introducing statements introduce recent fabrication. McDaniel, 81 10, 611 265, 268 (1993); 715 (Winter, concurring). Had able prove withhold avert rebuttal. ignore terms, bear controversy. true, says, judge's questioned manner, true respond force precedent because, 1895 view, evaluated powerful acquitted, induce people lie. 304-305. decided conceived dependent statute, prescription. (defendant qualified oath pursuant 1878 Congress, 37, removed common-law disability previously prevented testimony). 19th-century exacted penalty right.2 thus inaccurate portray difference "is distinction." Ante, significance insignificance, question. 46 endeavors territory yoking defined Griffin's makes sense carries implications. 10-11, 4. flawed premise, rested solidly Amendment. refer connection discussion construing provision prohibit 612-613. Wilson, now codified 3481 analog right. regarded settling Amendment-an odd imagine taking-then Wilson. not. govern one, constitutional: "The whether, Amendment." 613 added). controlled precisely that-a statute-and unorthodox Reagan's dimension.3 47 offers First, suggests historically seen Agard's readily distinguishable excursus ever accepted consti- tutional, relies implausible premises rejected. 48 narrative proceeds follows: early days Republic, "need" (unsworn) compared gave course. Later, instituted did,4 obviating times.5 So traditionally thought unproblematic. 4-5. 49 comprehend finds demonstration history unchallenged use. times past arguments, made. Notably, calls 18th- And occasion old cases confronts scarcely indicates constitutional. 50 unconvincing. posits ban draw adverse materially presence, 'natural irresistible.' 615) added majority). startling statement. fails convey "not ibid. implies indeed many, perhaps most, cases. is. 332 dissenting) (The "runs exactly counter normal evidentiary inferences: ask son saw movie forbidden watch, import clear."); Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 340 (It "very doubtful" jurors, devices, testify.). often (but nonetheless prohibited) requests, 288, 301-303 (1981) (An uninstructed drawn.). 51 "natural" "irresistible" invited draw. are, want Perhaps fears crimes generate placed jury; unappealing countenance effect; worries drag public view though unlawful, deeply embarrassing. choose arrest. scenario arrest, hypothesized behavior. 52 Not appears fits sheer behavior completely. tailoring.6 Unless prejudged guilty, unless altered, possibility involves wrongful disagree assertion, "requir[ing] impossible."7 little maintain drawing unable thinking spin web seamlessness 53 states proscribing require impossible, "inviting do." authority, issue. open, understandably Carter. follow warnings, shows readiness themselves. seems unproblematic latitude narrower assessment. 54 endeavor inferences, merely dominantly physical inconclusive concentrate available firepower Argument acknowledges questions coextensive. (Agard's "ultimately determination."). 55 emphasizes (1972). 7-8. again, critical. Cross-examination primary contesting cross-examined. supports sufficient value aid finding matters touch expose tailors 233, 238; Brooks, 609-612. Thus tactics restriction license rejects. 56 57 end, burdens justified reference aim sorting ones, supported law. warranted. declared "what regarding pertinent events"-"the witnesses." 99. impermissible, "bolstering witnesses' vis--vis trial." affirm summation: "A lot told corroborates complaining you. thin[g] denials crimes. Everything perfectly." 46-47. That, suspicious falsely implication hangs together, helps completely through looking glass. offense misdemeanor felony. Even today, recognize petty crimes, provisions prosecutions. Lewis 518 322 (1996) (right attach offenses). classified belonging category offenses explicitly heightened procedural protections attached 302-304. Ido constitutionality advises including variety. outcome. ("If person's it."). note, reports, 11-12, 834. Any affect governing admissibility restrict Amendments. years, constant 889 580 161, 163 (Me. 1990); Hart 538 1146, 1149 1988); Hemingway, 148 Vt. 90, 91-92, 528 746, 747-748 (1987); Commonwealth Person, Mass. 136, 138-142, 508 88, 90-92 Johnson, 80 Wash. 337, 908 900 (1996). Elberry, Ct. 912, 645 (1995), sustained issued curative instruction: "Of he's got too" [Y]ou untoward testifying." 913, 2d, 43. describes tailor. 7, urged jury. encouraged draw, opportunity, (Defendant testifie[d]" [He got] evidence?" He's man" advantage.") anything; prevents something. presume inevitably invitation. confidence naturally regard perplexing equal "essential" anyway, pursuit suffer

Category: 0