Document: 438 U.S. 41 98 S.Ct. 2610 57 L.Ed.2d 582 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Ted R. GRAYSON. No. 76-1572. Argued Feb. 22, 1978. Decided June 26, Syllabus A sentencing judge, in fixing the sentence of a defendant within statutory limits, may consider defendant's false testimony observed by judge during trial. Pp. 45-55. (a) defenda t's truthfulness or mendacity while testifying on his own behalf is probative attitudes toward society and prospects for rehabilitation, thus relevant factor process. 50-51. (b) Taking into account does not constitute punishment crime perjury which has been indicted, tried, convicted due process; rather, it an attempt rationally to exercise judicial discretion evaluating personality rehabilitation. To extent that precluded from relying information concerning "every aspect life," Williams v. New York, 337 241, 250, 69 1079, 1084, 93 L.Ed. 1337, effort appraise character degenerates game chance. 53-54. (c) Judicial consideration conduct trial impermissibly "chill" constitutional right testify behalf, guaranteed truthfully accordance with oath. however, required automatically enhance who falsely testifies but, authorized where he determines willfully materially assess rehabilitation light all other knowledge gained about defendant. 54-55. 550 F.2d 103, 3 Cir., reversed remanded. Sol. Gen. Wade H. McCree, Jr., Washington, D.C., petitioner. John M. Humphrey, Williamsport, Pa., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari review holding Court Appeals was improper give 2 * In August 1975, respondent Grayson confined federal prison camp under conviction distributing controlled substance. October, escaped but apprehended two days later FBI agents York City. He indicted escape violation 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1976 ed.). During its case chief, United States proved essential elements crime, including lawful confinement unlawful escape. addition, presented arresting Grayson, upon being apprehended, denied true identity. 4 testified defense. admitted leaving asserted did so out fear: "I had just threatened large stick nail protruding through inmate serving time at Allenwood, I scared, ran." threat made presence many inmates prisoner Barnes sought enforce collection gambling debt followed threats physical assaults same purpose. called one inmate, testified: heard[Barnes] talk loud voice day, that's all. never seen no harm, hands shuffling whatsoever." 5 Grayson's version facts contradicted Government's rebuttal evidence cross-examination crucial aspects story. For example, stated after crossing fence left jacket side road. On recross, also shirt trousers. Government showed morning escape, marked number, jacket, pair trousers were found outside hole fence.1 cross-examination: do believe phrased rhetorical question Captain Kurd, charge [the prison], think said something if some ody, what would . do? First want know was." further cross-examination, modified description conversation. Kurd mentioned any fashion inmates. Finally, alleged assailant, Barnes, then longer owed him money physically assaulted Grayson. 6 The jury returned guilty verdict, whereupon District Judge ordered Probation Office prepare presentence report. At hearing, stated: 7 "I'm going my reasons this clarity, because well be considered impermissible; although could come Room Defendant five-year term without explanation all, fair feels am enunciate will position reverse send back re-sentencing. 8 "In view indicated, impose deter you, others are similarly situated. Secondly, your defense complete fabrication slightest merit whatsoever. feel proper me fact sentencing, so." (Emphasis added.) 9 sentenced years' imprisonment, consecutive unexpired sentence.2 10 appeal, divided panel Third Circuit directed vacated resentenced testimony. 103 (1977). Two judges concluded result mandated language prior decision Circuit, Poteet Fauver, 517 393, 395 (1975): "[T]he add penalty believes lied." One concurring opinion, suggested Court's reliance "trenches privilege as have criminal charges," such perjury, formally adjudicated "pursuant procedures process." 108. dissenting challenged both applicability suggestion approach constitutionally impermissible. 11 resolve conflicts between holdings Courts Appeals.3 434 816, 53, 54 71 reverse. II 12 247, 1083, 1337 (1949), Black "prevalent modern philosophy penology [is] should fit offender merely crime," that, accordingly, sentences determined eye "[r]eformation offenders." Id., 248, S.Ct., 1084. But always so. early Republic, when imprisonment only recently emerged alternative death penalty, public stocks, whipping town square, period incarceration generally prescribed specificity legislature. Each defined punishment. See Report Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Criminal Sentencing, Fair Certain Punishment 83-85 (1976) (Task Report). "excessive rigidity [mandatory fixed sentence] system" soon gave way jurisdictions, scheme permitting judge—or jury—to aggravating mitigating circumstances surrounding offense, and, basis, select range Tappan, Sentencing Under Model Penal Code, 23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 528, 529 (1958). Nevertheless, focus remained crime: particular offense punished proportion social harm caused according offender's culpability.4 See, e.g., Iowa Code 1851, Tit. XXIV, ch. 182, §§ 3067, 3068, reprinted S. Rubin, Correction 131-132 (2d ed. 1973). purpose remained, primarily, retribution 13 Approximately century ago, reform movement asserting incarceration, therefore guiding offender,5 dramatically altered sentencing. fundamental proposal flexible system correctional personnel, particularly latter, set release date prisoners informed judgments their potential for, actual, likely recidivism. 82. Indeed, most extreme formulations emerging model, "reformatory sentence," posited "convicts [regardless nature crime] can rightfully imprisoned except proof unsafe themselves leave them free, released until they show membership free community." Lewis, Indeterminate Sentence, Yale L.J. 17, 27 (1899). 14 This formulation, influential, adopted unmodified jurisdiction. supra, 531-533. "The influences legalism realism powerful enough prevent enactment form indeterminate Concern personal liberty, skepticism administrative decisions reformation readiness release, insistence preservation measure deterrent emphasis, factors, undoubtedly, led, instead, system—indeed, complex systems—in maximum terms employed." 530. Thus today prisoner's initially selects often broad, congressionally range; parole available Parole Commission, which, general rule, conditionally serves one-third judicially term.6 4205 unspecified degree,7 obligated make among others, predictions regarding potential, lack rehabilitation.8 15 model serious practical problem: how avoid capricious arbitrary sentences, newly conferred broad placed realm possibility. An obvious, partial, solution provide much reasonably "character propensities[,] present purposes tendencies," Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan Ashe, 302 51, 55, 58 59, 60, 82 43 (1937), indeed, [his] life." U.S., Thus, jurisdictions provided trained probation officers investigations life report judge.9 16 Constitutional challenges leveled information, however. murder recommended sentence. partly basis known contained report, imposed penalty. argued procedure deprived confront cross-examine those supplying officer him, judge. rejected argument. It noted traditionally "a wide sources types used assist determining kind limits law." 246, 1082. "And concepts individualizing more necessary opportunity obtain pertinent information," id., 1083; "[t]o deprive undermine penological procedural policies cautiously throughout nation careful experimentation." 249-250, Accordingly, held acted unconstitutionally considering either participation secured investigator "menace society." 244, 1081. 17 Of course, limited far-ranging material compiled "[B]efore making sentencing] determination, appropriately inquiry scope, largely unlimited consider, source come." Tucker, 404 443, 446, 92 589, 591, 30 592 (1972). Congress reaffirmed principle enacting 3577 ed.):10 "No limitation shall background, character, person court receive imposing appropriate sentence." 19 we acknowledged authority legitimately heard trial, demeanor accused. Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 32, 1977, 1985, 36 714 (1973). More point case, study judge's "opportunity observe defendant, chose take stand defense, useful insights disposition." ABA Project Standards Justice, Alternatives Procedures 5.1, p. 232 (App. Draft 1968). 20 almost exception, deemed hence Soon decided, Tenth "the attitude respect willingness commit [perjury] matter limitations statute." Humes States, 186 875, 878 (1951). Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth Circuits since agreed. n. 3, supra. Marvin Frankel's analysis Second persuasive: 21 'character' is, sure, parlous one, necessarily enterprise notably equipped training. Yet our existing clue rational discretion. If notion 'repentance' today, remains manipulative defiance law cheerful datum prognosis undertakes. Impressions individual sentenced—the likelihood transgress more, hope respond rehabilitative efforts future career, degree deem himself war society—are, better worse, central factors appraised theory 'individualized' critics. While lasts, like lie oath before seem precise concrete indicia." Hendrix, 505 1233, 1236 (1974). 22 Only directly value Scott 135 U.S.App.D.C. 377, 382, 419 264, 269 (1969), 'the peculiar pressures jail stigma deny unpromising test guilty. indeed unlikely men offenses balk lying man quite sincerely repent yet, driven urge remain protest innocence 24 Moore, 484 1284, 1288 (CA4 1973) (Craven, J., concurring). rationale rests psychological dock—which grant—but deterministic human inconsistent underlying precepts justice system. "universal persistent" foundation stone law, punishment, "belief freedom consequent ability duty normal choose good evil." Morissette 342 72 240, 243, 96 288 (1952). Blocker 110 41, 853, 865 (1961) (opinion result). Given long-accepted "ability choose," must conclude ie oath—especially when, here, finds flagrant—may III 25 Against background evaluate argument constitutes second defendants exercising behalf. 26 process argument, contend impermissible selecting Rather, argues Court, order preserve rights, prohibit practice incarcerating saving burden bringing separate subsequent prosecution otherwise permissible untruthfulness illuminating need society's protection. presents interrelated reasons. effect practices same: additional prison. Further, virtually impossible, contends, identify establish practice. find these insufficient justification prohibiting declared conduct. First, evolutionary history Part II, demonstrates proper—indeed, even discretion—to whole personality, manifested oath, whatever shed decision. "parlous" "character," 1236, chance interest, offender's, avoiding irrationality highest order. That interest than justifies risk asserts considers 28 view, fully supports There permitted antisocial conduct, burglaries duly convicted. despite might use crimes 29 Third, efficacy "exclusionary rule" open doubt. No rule garbed terms, firsthand observations perjury. integrity judges, fidelity oaths office, only, adequate, assurance against that. B "chills" right, 3481 ed.), perhaps basis. narrowly oath—unless say mere ritual meaning. involved confirmed unquestioned constitutionality statutes, punish e. g., 1621 ed.); cf. Wong, 431 174, 97 1823, 52 231 Further support important assistance counsel: Counsel ethically cannot client presenting attorney reason Holloway Arkansas, 435 475, 480 n.4, 1173, 1176 55 426 (1978); Defense Function 7.7(c), 133 (Compilation 1974). Assuming, arguendo, defendants' chilling falsely, entirely permissible. protected 31 here inhibit frivolous. misapprehends scope Nothing requires enhance, wooden reflex fashion, whose false. reaffirming carefully stand, determine—with consciousness frailty judgment—whether willful falsehoods, so, meaning restoration place society. Awareness realistically affect accused unconvicted 32 judgment remand reinstatement 33 Reversed 34 STEWART, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 35 begins ante, 42, assumption there determination given greater received—how knowing—solely single thought truthfully.1 essence, holds whenever guilty, opens possibility enhanced Such nothing less rights plead behalf.2 change matters reflects "prospects rehabilitation" rather falsely.3 testify, face very real prospect based unreviewable perception untruthful. prescribes safeguards minimize fear truthful perceived false.4 encumbrance collateral inquiries pragmatically unworkable theoretically piece overall evaluation fail see dismiss "frivolous" "inhibit truthfully," 55. 37 inhibited number considerations, damaging admissible impeach credibility. These constraints arise solely properly treated witness approves actually places disadvantage, compared simply Other witnesses indictment accord full protections Constitution. himself, critical importance defense,5 faces disbelief listener itself 38 minimal contribution possibly untruthful assessment justify arriving allows mete belief 39 affirm Appeals. clothing addition quality recollection. unpremeditatedly fleeing possessions fence, hitchhiked City—a difficult task prearrangement met someone, woman friend, highway near break accomplice civilian clothes. introduced friend visited prison, each three immediately penultimate day camp. up five years. Compare (1977), 264 1233 (CA2 1974), cert. denied, 423 897, 199, 46 130 ( 975); 1284 1973); Nunn, 525 958 (CA5 1976); Wallace, 418 876 (CA6 1969), 397 955, 90 987, 140 (1970); Levine, 372 70 (CA7 1967); Hess 496 936 (CA8 1974); Cluchette, 465 749 (CA9 1972); 875 (CA10 1951). 88. National Prison Association influential 1870 Declaration Principles, "punishment criminal." 93. development continues engage attention. 1437, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., (1977); Report. Increasingly doubts validity earlier, uncritical acceptance model. So experienced penologist late Torsten Eriksson, long Director Prisons Sweden Nations Interregional Advisor Crime Prevention dedicated 1976 book, Reformers: Historical Survey Pioneer Experiments Treatment Criminals (Djurklou transl.), failed." 74: assumptions play role whether confined, weight varies enormously judges." thoughtful authorities, optimistic earlier years undergoing reappraisal. supra., n.6. Shimm, Foreword, 399 (1958): "Signalizing, hand, termination phase, accurately reflect community's misconduct adjudged thereby ratify reinforce community values. Marking, threshold sanction treatment defining length, look functioning, productive, responsible member 1945, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 32(c)(2) provided, today: investigation contain record characteristics, financial condition affecting behavior helpful granting court." All amendments Rule 32(c) promulgation purposes: first, increase reports de ision second, assessing accuracy them. Advisory Committee's Notes amendments, U.S.C.App., pp. 1456-1460 8A J. Federal Practice &Par; 32.03[1]-[4] (1975). end, Congress, 1973 828 officers—an 125%. 1971 275%. Title 4205(c)-(d) ed.) district courts means, acquiring sentencing: commitment six months enable Bureau prisoner." enacted part 1001 Organized Control Act 1970, section designed extended dangerous special offenders, i. e., habitual, professional, organized offender. House 1970 Act, now 3577, cites York. H.R.Rep. 91-1549, 63 S.Rep. 91-617, 167 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 4007. laudable explication case. cases impossible discern influenced truthfully, requirement given. argue correcting erroneous policy apparent record. Cf. Bordenkircher Hayes, 357, 372, 663, 672, 604 (POWELL, dissenting). As notes, 54, "[t]he judges" sufficient guarantee consciously impermissible, absolute elect go latter Sixth Fourteenth Amendments "to defense," Faretta California, 422 806, 819, 95 2525, 2533, 562, surely encompass Ferguson Georgia, 365 570, 602, 81 756, 773, 783 (Clark, doubting sincerity doubt incident ever alter drastically perceptibly paint picture possible. suspected consistent impact minimal. If, suggests markedly different seems appropriate, effectively barest rudiments "should independent convinced beyond reasonable intentionally lied issues [and] falsity established finding guilt." 114 (Rosenn, Contrary Rosenn, believed entire story concluded, words instructions duress, "an ordinary man" "have felt Allenwood Camp faced compulsion, coercion duress case." Notwithstanding standard instruction draw adverse inference th failure probably fatally prejudice chances acquittal." Note, Influence Defendant's Plea Determination 66 204, 212 (1956).

Category: 3