Opinion ID: 2567176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the nature of the right of allocution

Text: ¶ 5 The United States Supreme Court has said that the denial of the right of allocution is an error which is neither jurisdictional nor constitutional, nor is it a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice. Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). The right of allocution has its roots in common law. Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 304, 81 S.Ct. 653, 5 L.Ed.2d 670 (1961) (The design of [the federal allocution rule] did not begin with its promulgation; its legal provenance was the common-law right of allocution.). At common law, the object of allocution was to afford the prisoner an opportunity to move in arrest of judgment pleading specific legal defenses available to him. Jonathan Scofield Marshall, Comment, Lights, Camera, Allocution: Contemporary Relevance or Director's Dream?, 62 TUL. L.REV. 207, 210 (1987). Among these defenses were that certain judicial requirements had not been met, that the defendant was insane, or that the person sentenced was not the person tried. Id. In recognizing the common law right of allocution, the United States Supreme Court has observed that [t]he most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for a defendant as the defendant might, with halting eloquence, speak for himself. Green, 365 U.S. at 304, 81 S.Ct. 653.