Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/278/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:48:59+00:00

Document:
Petitioner's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment against him because of the court's failure to appoint counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing in 1967 was denied, and petitioner was tried and convicted. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, in which this Court held that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the criminal process at which the accused is constitutionally entitled to assistance of counsel, did not have retroactive application.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 405 U. S. 280-286.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concluded that Coleman v. Alabama, supra, does not apply retroactively to preliminary hearings conducted before June 22, 1970, when Coleman was decided. Pp. 405 U. S. 281-285.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER concurred in the result, concluding, as set forth in his dissent in Coleman, that there is no constitutional requirement that counsel should be provided at preliminary hearings. Pp. 405 U. S. 285-286.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN concurred in the result, concluding that Coleman was wrongly decided. P. 405 U. S. 286.
BRENNAN, J., announced the Court's judgment and delivered an opinion, in which STEWART and WHITE, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 405 U. S. 285. BLACKMUN, J., filed a statement concurring in the result, post, p. 405 U. S. 286. DOUGLAS J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 405 U. S. 286. POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
In Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, decided June 22, 1970, we held that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the criminal process at which the accused is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel. This case presents the question whether that constitutional doctrine applies retroactively to preliminary hearings conducted prior to June 22, 1970.
"implicate (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards."
"major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truthfinding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials. . . ."
Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 401 U. S. 653 (1971). Examples are the right to counsel at trial, Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); on appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); or at some forms of arraignment, Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961). See generally Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 388 U. S. 297-298; Williams v. United States, supra, at 401 U. S. 653 n. 6.
"the question whether a constitutional rule of criminal procedure does or does not enhance the reliability of the factfinding process at trial is necessarily a matter of degree,"
"must, in turn, be weighed against the prior justified reliance upon the old standard and the impact of retroactivity upon the administration of justice."
Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 388 U. S. 298.
tool for use in cross-examination of the State's witnesses at the trial," to "discover the case the State has against his client," "making effective arguments for the accused on such matters as the necessity for an early psychiatric examination . . . ," ibid. -- impeachment and discovery may make particularly significant contribution to the enhancement of the factfinding process, since they materially affect an accused's ability to present an effective defense at trial. But because of limitations upon the use of the preliminary hearing for discovery and impeachment purposes, counsel cannot be as effectual as at trial or on appeal. The authority of the court to terminate the preliminary hearing once probable cause is established, see People v. Bonner, 37 Ill.2d 553, 560, 229 N.E.2d 527, 531 (1967), means that the degree of discovery obtained will vary depending on how much evidence the presiding judge receives. Too, the preliminary hearing is held at an early stage of the prosecution, when the evidence ultimately gathered by the prosecution may not be complete. Cf. S.Rep. No. 371, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 33, on amending 18 U.S.C. § 3060. Counsel must also avail himself of alternative procedures, always a significant factor to be weighed in the scales. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. at 384 U. S. 730. Illinois provides, for example, bills of particulars and discovery of the names of prosecution witnesses. Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, §§ 114-2, 114-9, 114-10 (1971). Pretrial statements of prosecution witnesses may also be obtained for use for impeachment purposes. See, e.g., People v. Johnson, 31 Ill.2d 602, 203 N.E.2d 399 (1964).
itself or on appeal. Such danger is not ordinarily greater, we consider, at a preliminary hearing at which the accused is unrepresented than at a pretrial line-up or at an interrogation conducted without presence of an attorney."
number of courts, including all of the federal courts of appeals, had concluded that the preliminary hearing was not a critical stage entitling an accused to the assistance of counsel. [Footnote 3] It is thus clear there has been understandable and widespread reliance upon this view by law enforcement officials and the courts.
in favor of prospective application." Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 388 U. S. 299.
We do not regard petitioner's case as calling for a contrary conclusion merely because he made a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, or because his conviction is before us on direct review.
"[T]he factors of reliance and burden on the administration of justice [are] entitled to such overriding significance as to make [those] distinction [s] unsupportable."
Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 388 U. S. 300-301. Petitioner makes no claim of actual prejudice constituting a denial of due process. Such a claim would entitle him to a hearing without regard to today's holding that Coleman is not to be retroactively applied. See People v. Bernatowicz, 35 Ill.2d 192, 198, 220 N.E.2d 745, 748 (1966); People v. Bonner, 37 Ill.2d 553, 561, 229 N.E.2d 527, 532 (1967).
"A preliminary hearing in Alabama, as in Illinois, has the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed by the defendant. . . . In both States, the hearing is not a required step in the process of prosecution, as the prosecutor may seek an indictment directly from the grand jury, thereby eliminating the proceeding. . . . In neither State is a defendant required to offer defenses at the hearing at the risk of being precluded from raising them at the trial itself. . . . We conclude that the preliminary hearing procedures of Alabama and Illinois are substantially alike, and we must consider because of Coleman v. Alabama . . . that a preliminary hearing conducted pursuant to section 109-3 of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 109-3) is a 'critical stage' in this State's criminal process, so as to entitle the accused to the assistance of counsel."
A right to a preliminary hearing has been constitutionally established, effective July 1, 1971. Illinois Constitution of 1970, Art. I, § 7.
"To be sure, if a preliminary hearing is held, the accused gains important rights and advantages that can be effectively exercised only through his attorney. Counsel's function, however, differs from his function at trial. Broadly speaking, his role at the preliminary hearing is to advise, observe, discover the facts, and probe the state's case. In this respect, he serves in somewhat the same capacity as counsel at lineups and interrogations, which are both pretrial stages of criminal proceedings where the right to counsel has not been held retroactive."
Pagan Cancel v. Delgado, 408 F.2d 1018 (CA1 1969); United States ex rel. Cooper v. Reincke, 333 F.2d 608 (CA2 1964); United States ex rel. Budd v. Maroney, 398 F.2d 806 (CA3 1968); DeToro v. Pepersack, 332 F.2d 341 (CA4 1964); Walker v. Wainwright, 409 F.2d 1311 (CA5 1969); Waddy v. Heer, 383 F.2d 789 (CA6 1967); Butler v. Burke, 360 F.2d 118 (CA7 1966); Pope v. Swenson, 395 F.2d 321 (CA8 1968); Wilson v. Harris, 351 F.2d 840 (CA9 1965); Latham v. Crouse, 320 F.2d 120 (CA10 1963); Headen v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 317 F.2d 145 (1963).
I concur in the result, but maintain the view expressed in my dissent in Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, 399 U. S. 21 (1970), that, while counsel should be provided at preliminary hearings as a matter of sound policy and judicial administration, there is no constitutional requirement that it be done. As I noted in Coleman, the constitutional command applies to "criminal prosecutions," not to the shifting notion of "critical stages." Nor can I join in the view that it is a function of constitutional adjudication to assure that defense counsel can "fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State's witnesses at the trial" or "discover the case the State has against his client."
399 U.S. at 399 U. S. 9. Nothing could better illustrate the extra-constitutional scope of Coleman than the interpretation of it now to explain why we do not make it "retroactive."
Inasmuch as I feel that Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970), was wrongly decided, I concur in the result.
Until Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965), the Court traditionally applied new constitutional criminal procedure standards to cases finalized and police practices operative before the promulgation of the new rules. [Footnote 2/1] Linkletter, however, was the cradle of a new doctrine of nonretroactivity which exempts from relief the earlier victims of unconstitutional police practices. I have disagreed on numerous occasions with applications of various brands of this doctrine, and I continue my dissent in this case. [Footnote 2/2] My own view is that even-handed justice requires either prospectivity only [Footnote 2/3] or complete retroactivity.
"[s]imply fishing one case from the stream of appellate review, using it as a vehicle for pronouncing new constitutional standards, and then permitting a stream of similar cases subsequently to flow by unaffected by that new rule. . . ."
"whether a particular decision has really announced a 'new' rule at all, or whether it has simply applied a well established constitutional principle."
unfairness of arbitrarily granting relief to Coleman but denying it to Adams.
terms, the balancing approach would appear to require that we hold Coleman retroactive. This conclusion reinforces my fear that the process is too imprecise as a neutral guide for either this Court or the lower courts, and will invariably permit retroactivity decisions to turn on predilections, not principles.
"On [the] scale of probabilities, we judge that the lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing involves less danger to 'the integrity of the truth-determining process at trial' than the omission of counsel at the trial itself or on appeal."
In light of this disparity, one important service the preliminary hearing performs is to permit counsel to penetrate the evidence offered by the prosecution at the hearing, to test its strengths and weaknesses (without the presence of a jury), to learn the names and addresses of witnesses, to focus upon the key factual issues in the upcoming trial, and to preserve testimony for impeachment purposes. The alternative discovery techniques suggested now by the plurality are puny in comparison. A bill of particulars can usually reach only prosecution witnesses' names, and it may be cold comfort to defense counsel to learn that he can obtain pretrial statements of prosecution witnesses, inasmuch as such statements are often prepared from the State's viewpoint, and have not been subjected to cross-examination. And, in many States, such statements are not discoverable.
"the guiding hand of counsel at the preliminary hearing is essential to protect the indigent accused against an erroneous or improper prosecution,"
"The inability of the indigent accused on his own to realize these advantages of a lawyer's assistance compels the conclusion that the Alabama preliminary hearing is a 'critical stage' of the State's criminal process at which the accused is 'as much entitled to such aid [of counsel] . . . as at the trial itself.'"
"If I felt free to consider this case upon a clean slate, I would have voted to affirm these convictions. But -- in light of the lengths to which the right to appointed counsel has been carried in recent decisions of this Court, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 (1967); Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 (1968); and Orozco v. Texas, 394 U. S. 324 (1969) -- I consider that course is not open to me with due regard for the way in which the adjudicatory process of this Court, as I conceive it, should work. . . ."
"It would indeed be strange were this Court, having held a suspect or an accused entitled to counsel at such pretrial stages as 'in-custody' police investigation, whether at the station house (Miranda) or even in the home (Orozco), now to hold that he is left to fend for himself at the first formal confrontation in the courtroom."
Thus, in the instant case, at the times relevant, the State should have foreseen that the right to counsel attached to the probable cause hearing.
I also disagree that "[t]he impact upon the administration of the criminal law of [Coleman retroactivity] needs no elaboration." Ante at 405 U. S. 284. In the 19 months since Coleman was decided all new prosecutions have presumably followed it and we therefore need only be concerned, for impact purposes, with those state proceedings in which a preliminary hearing was held prior to June, 1970. Inasmuch as the median state sentence served by felons when they are first released is about 20.9 months, [Footnote 2/9] most pre-Coleman sentences would now be served and, as a practical matter, these former prisoners would not seek judicial review. Moreover, we may exclude from our consideration those 16 or more States that, prior to Coleman routinely appointed counsel at or prior to preliminary hearings. See American Bar Association, Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services § 5.1 (Approved Draft 1968). Additionally, we may exclude from consideration the possibility of collateral challenges by federal prisoners inasmuch as counsel have routinely been present at preliminary hearings before federal commissioners. [Footnote 2/10] See Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 5(b).
many of these attacks would probably fail under the harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967). The plurality opinion suggests that conducting such harmless error proceedings would be onerous. One reason given is that, in Illinois, for example, preliminary hearings were not recorded before Coleman. That assertion may not be entirely accurate in light of the fact that this very record contains a transcript of Adams' preliminary hearing. Perhaps, as the respondent seems to concede, [Footnote 2/11] transcripts were made available in other Illinois cases. That is the more reasonable assumption in light of our holding in Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U. S. 40 (1967), that the State must provide a preliminary hearing transcript to an indigent in every circumstance in which the more affluent accused could obtain one.
had materialized from an uncounseled preliminary hearing. See Procunier v. Atchley, 400 U. S. 446 (1971).
Even Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. at 388 U. S. 299, the analogy frequently invoked by the plurality, held out the possibility of collateral relief in cases where prisoners could show that their lineups had imposed "such unfairness that [they] infringed [their] right to due process of law." Conducting Coleman harmless error hearings would not appear to be any more burdensome on the administration of criminal justice than have Stovall "fundamental fairness" post-conviction proceedings.
In any event, whatever litigation might follow a holding of Coleman retrospectivity must be considered part of the price we pay for former failures to provide fair procedures.
E.g., Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U. S. 214 (1958); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964), (see also Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 394 U. S. 250 n. 15 (1969)); Reck v. Pate, 367 U. S. 433 (1961).
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 381 U. S. 640 (1965); Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 382 U. S. 419 (1966); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 384 U. S. 736 (1966); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 388 U. S. 302 (1967); DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631, 392 U. S. 635 (1968); Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 394 U. S. 255 (1969); Halliday v. United States, 394 U. S. 831, 394 U. S. 835 (1969); Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 401 U. S. 713 (1971).
It was suggested in Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 388 U. S. 301, that a prospective-only holding would violate the Art. III requirement of case or controversy. But see England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 375 U. S. 422 (1964), where the Court exempted the petitioner from its holding. See also Johnson v. New Jersey, supra, at 384 U. S. 733.
"Where federal review of the constitutionality of state criminal proceedings is concerned, the making of so sharp a distinction between review on certiorari and habeas corpus is unwarranted. There is often no significant difference with respect to age and potential staleness between the two types of cases. Rather than coming years after the conviction is final, habeas corpus is often but a routine step in the criminal defense process -- the normal step taken after certiorari has been denied. Sometimes, it actually replaces certiorari, for, in Fay v. Noia [372 U.S. 391 (1963)], the Supreme Court advised criminal defendants to skip certiorari and to petition directly to the federal district court for habeas corpus. Even in situations in which a defendant goes through all the direct review steps, it is often nothing more than fortuitous circumstance which determines whether his case is still on direct review or is on collateral attack when the new decision comes down."
"The difference between review on certiorari and habeas corpus seems even less significant when we look to function and actual operation. Although it is sometimes considered the 'normal' method for obtaining federal review of state convictions, certiorari does not provide, as the Court remarked in Fay v. Noia, 'a normal appellate channel in any sense comparable to the writ of error,' for the Court must limit its jurisdiction to questions that have significance beyond the immediate case. Habeas corpus, on the other hand, facilitates the Court's task in those cases it does take by providing a record focused exclusively on the federal constitutional question. Habeas corpus has thus become the primary vehicle for immediate federal review of state convictions. Further, this development has resulted in a gradual shrinking of what were once significant operational differences between review on certiorari and habeas corpus, such as the relationship to the state proceeding, the degree of independent factfinding authority, and the significance of the defendant's violation of state procedural rules. From both the functional and the operational standpoints, then, it is justifiable to conclude that 'the distinctions between habeas corpus proceedings and direct review are largely illusory.'"
"In addition, drawing a line between review [on] certiorari and habeas corpus undercuts the Supreme Court's bypass suggestion in Fay v. Noia. If a defendant has doubts about the retroactivity of any claim which might both affect him and be subject to Court review in the foreseeable future, he will be well advised always to ignore the Court's suggestion and to apply for certiorari. Many months may pass before his petition for certiorari is rejected, and, so long as it is pending, he will be entitled to receive the benefits of any intervening decisions. As soon as he files his petition for habeas corpus, however, even if he does so only a day after the last state court order is entered, he will have forfeited his right to such benefits. He will thus be put to an election between delayed relief and no relief at all."
"The inequity of drawing a sharp distinction between direct review and habeas corpus is, however, only one aspect of a broader inequity: treating two prisoners deprived of the same fundamental constitutional right differently merely because the Supreme Court did not get around to enunciating a particular right until after the conviction of one of them had become final. Professor Mishkin argues that worry about this point ignores"
"the reasons for barring current convictions and . . . the fact that the new rule in no way undermines the earlier determinations of factual guilt."
"To him, it is as if a guilty person were to complain of his lot because others equally guilty were not prosecuted. And though he recognizes that such claims are sometimes sustained, he concludes that 'there are certainly rational bases for drawing a line between current convictions and those previously final,' citing excerpts from Professors Bator and Amsterdam on finality. Professor Mishkin's sharp distinction between collateral attack and direct review thus rests ultimately on finality considerations."
"Finality considerations seem especially weak where two cases differ only in the fact that one is still on 'direct' review, whereas the other is not. Where the two cases are far apart in age, finality considerations are admittedly more persuasive. But even there, the mere timing of the Court's decision to grant federal protection to a fundamental right hardly seems to be a sufficient basis for unequal treatment; after all, in most instances, it was not the older prisoner's fault that the Court did not render its decision earlier. To some extent, of course, the question comes down to a choice between the competing values of equality and repose, and choices of this sort are notoriously immune to reasoned resolution. It will be suggested below, however, that the threat to finality considerations from complete retroactivity appears to have been greatly exaggerated, and, if this suggestion is well taken, Professor Mishkin's rejection of equality is especially untenable."
Schwartz, Retroactivity, Reliability, and Due Process: A Reply to Professor Mishkin, 33 U.Chi.L.Rev. 719, 731-734 (1966).
See McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U. S. 2 (1968) (Mempa retroactive); Arsenault v. Massachusetts, 393 U. S. 5 (1968) (White and Hamilton retroactive).
The investigative advantage enjoyed by the State extends beyond the prohibition of the common law against criminal discovery. It also results from the fact that the police are usually first at the scene of the crime, have access to witnesses with fresher recollections, are authorized to confiscate removable evidence, are positioned to conduct laboratory tests on physical evidence, enjoy a communication channel with a complete undercover world of secret informers, have an air of legitimacy which is conducive to cooperation by witnesses, and have numerous ways to compel testimony even before trial. See generally Norton, Discovery in the Criminal Process, 61 J.Crim.L., C. & P. S. 11, 13-14 (1970); Comment, Criminal Law: Pre-Trial Discovery -- The Right of an Indigent's Counsel to Inspect Police Reports, 14 St.Louis U.L.J. 310 (1969); Moore, Criminal Discovery, 19 Hastings L.J. 865 (1968); A State Statute to Liberalize Criminal Discovery, 4 Harv.J.Legis. 105 (1967); Comment, Disclosure and Discovery in Criminal Cases: Where Are We Headed?, 6 Duquesne U.L.Rev. 41 (1967); Bibliography: Criminal Discovery, 5 Tulsa L.J. 207 (1968); Symposium: Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases, 33 F.R.D. 53 (1963); Brennan, Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or Quest For Truth? 1963 Wash.U.L.Q. 279.
I am aware that the retroactivity theory presently commanding a Court permits a distinction between rules designed to fortify the reliability of verdicts and rules designed to protect other values. But here, as the plurality suggests, three of the four functions counsel might serve at preliminary hearings would appear to enhance the factfinding process: discovery of the State's case, preserving of testimony of both hostile and favorable witnesses, and obtaining release on bail. Although the plurality appears to discount the investigative advantage of being free on bail, I believe that this "traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense." Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1, 342 U. S. 4 (1951). See also Kinney v. Lenon, 425 F.2d 209, 210 (CA9 1970), where the Court of Appeals found that "the appellant is the only person who can effectively prepare his own defense," because the incarcerated accused was the only person who could recognize witnesses by sight who might have seen a scuffle.
To this list might have been added Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U. S. 40 (1967), holding that the State must provide an indigent with a preliminary hearing transcript in every circumstance in which the more affluent accused could obtain one.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, National Prisoner Statistics -- Characteristics of State Prisoners, 1960, pp. 26-27 (1965).
"The law enforcement officials of the Federal Government and of all 50 States have heretofore proceeded on the premise that the Constitution did not require the presence of counsel at pretrial confrontations for identification."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3060
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.