Document: 484 U.S. 400 108 S.Ct. 646 98 L.Ed.2d 798 Ray TAYLOR, Petitioner,v.ILLINOIS. No. 86-5963. Argued Oct. 7, 1987. Decided Jan. 25, 1988. Rehearing Denied March 28, See 485 983, 1283. Syllabus Well in advance of petitioner's state-court trial for attempted murder, the prosecutor filed a discovery motion requesting list defense witnesses. Petitioner's answer failed to one Wormley, as did his amended answer, submitted and accepted on first day trial, identifying two witnesses who were never called testify. On second after prosecution's principal had completed their testimony, counsel made an oral further amend include Wormley. Counsel explained that Wormley probably seen entire incident led indictment that, although petitioner told about earlier, been unable locate At subsequent voir dire examination, testified he not witness itself but earlier victim brother carrying guns threatening just happened run into warned him watch out. cross-examination, acknowledged met over years question visited at home during week before began. As sanction failure identify judge refused allow testify jury. The committed blatant willful violation rules doubted veracity Wormley's testimony. Illinois Appellate Court affirmed conviction. Held: 1. Compulsory Process Clause Sixth Amendment may, appropriate case, be violated by imposition entirely excludes testimony material witness. is merely guarantee accused shall have power subpoena witnesses, confers fundamental right present own defense. Pp. 407-409. 2. However, does create absolute bar preclusion violating rule. Although court may ignore character defendant's offer favor, mere invocation cannot automatically invariably outweigh countervailing public interests. If violations are motivated desire obtain tactical advantage or conceal plan fabricated it would exclude witnesses' regardless whether other, less drastic sanctions might available, adequate, merited. 410-416. 3. exclusion constitute constitutional error. 416-418. (a) fact examination adequately protected prosecution from prejudice resulting surprise render unnecessarily harsh. record raises strong inferences was deliberately seeking failing "witnesses [were] being found really weren't there." Thus, case fits category misconduct which severe justified order protect integrity judicial process. P. 416—417. (b) It unfair hold responsible lawyer's misconduct. lawyer necessarily has full authority manage conduct client must accept consequences decisions. 417—418. 141 Ill.App.3d 839, 96 Ill.Dec. 189, 491 N.E.2d 3 (1986), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. ___. Richard E. Cunningham, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Michael Shabat, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 response pretrial request, undisclosed presented refusal favorable We such absolutely prohibited find no error specific facts this case.1 2 * A jury convicted 1984 attempting murder Jack Bridges street fight south side Chicago August 6, 1981. conviction supported Bridges, brother, three other They described 20-minute argument between young man named Derrick Travis, violent encounter occurred hour later several friends including petitioner, hand, belatedly aided other. witnessed 20 30 bystanders. undisputed least members group included Travis pipes clubs they used beat Bridges. Prosecution also gun, shot back flee, fell, pointed gun Bridges' head weapon misfired. Two sisters, behalf. In many respects version consistent with rather than possessed firearm fired hitting mistake. No 4 witnesses.2 original response, attorney identified sisters men testify.3 allowed adding names police officer; neither them actually testified. 5 "Answer Discovery" more Alfred Pam Berkhalter. support motion, represented informed "entire incident."4 6 court's inquiry tell defendant done so, then Wormley.5 After noting could supplied even if addresses unknown, directed bring next day, time decide indicated concerned possibility "that there."6 7 morning appeared counsel.7 colloquy rules, permitted make proof form outside presence developed itself. He prior saw blanket, heard say "they [petitioner] people," way "happened them" "to out because got weapons."8 "about four months ago" (i.e., incident). Wednesday dramatically contradicted counsel's representations court. 8 hearing testify, concluded explained: 9 "THE COURT: All right, I am going deny opportunity here. blatent [sic] rules. feel attorneys courtroom last cases blatantly put stop do so. 10 "Further, whatever value is, great deal doubt my mind eyewitness scene, sees wrapped up. doesn't know stops Ray. 11 "At any rate, Mr. courtroom." App. 28. 12 (1986). held when "discovery violated, evidence party wishes introduce" "[t]he decision severity impose violates rests within sound discretion court." "the its refusing additional testify." Id., 844-845, Ill.Dec., 193, N.E.2d, 7. Supreme denied leave appeal we granted petition certiorari, 479 1063, 107 947, 93 996 (1987). 13 makes arguments. contends bars ever ordering Alternatively, absolute, Before addressing these contentions, consider State's simply apply rulings admissibility evidence.9 II 14 view, concerns raised authorizing sanction, application rule case. plain language Clause, see n. 1, supra, historical intended provide defendants lacked common law,10 some scholarly comment,11 brief excerpt legislative history Clause.12 have, however, consistently given broader reading reflected contemporaneous state provisions.13 15 noted Term, "[o]ur establish, minimum, criminal government's assistance compelling attendance influence determination guilt." Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 39, 56, 989, 1000, 94 40 Few rights defense, see, e.g., Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 302, 1038, 1049, 35 297 (1973). Indeed, essential attribute adversary system 16 "We elected employ justice parties contest all issues law. need develop relevant both comprehensive. ends defeated judgments founded partial speculative presentation facts. very confidence depend disclosure facts, framework evidence. To ensure done, imperative function courts compulsory process available production needed either defense." United States Nixon, 418 683, 709, 3090, 3108, 41 1039 (1974). 17 compel witness' embrace trier fact. thus grounded though expressly so words: 18 "The attendance, necessary, terms well where truth lies. Just confront purpose challenging establish This element due law." Washington Texas, 388 14, 19, 87 1920, 1923, 1019 (1967). 19 "stands lesser footing previously applicable States." 18, S.Ct., 1923. offended III claim creates extreme unacceptable position irrelevant. unfettered incompetent, privileged, otherwise inadmissible under standard provides effective weapon, irresponsibly. 21 There significant difference Amendment—its availability dependent initiative. Most arise initiation action necessary active her case.14 While those shield potential prosecutorial abuses, sword employed rebut particular solely defendant. nature requires use preceded deliberate planning affirmative conduct. 22 principle undergirds exculpatory source limitations right. effectively without adherence procedure govern orderly arguments each fair assemble submit contradict explain opponent's shambles control content Neither insist interrupt opposing party's obviously there deliberations newly discovered interest sufficient justify enforcement firm, always inflexible, relating identification evidence.15 23 designed vindicate "ends facts." U.S., 3108. Rules serve same high purpose.16 Discovery, like minimizes risk judgment will predicated incomplete, misleading, "State's protecting against eleventh-hour defense"17 component truthful critical 24 subjected cross-examination. Brown States, 356 148, 156, 78 622, 627, 589 (1958). Moreover, Nobles, 422 225, 95 2160, 45 (1975), upheld excluding expert tendered permit "highly relevant" report. Writing Powell 25 proper method assuring compliance order. Respondent's ruling deprived cross-examination misconceives issue. District investigator's Cf. [87 1019] prevented respondent presenting view credibility issue adducing thereafter disclose report insights. confer free legitimate demands adversarial system; invoke justification what half-truth. Deciding, do, assure hear investigator truncated portion respondent, think artificial indeed deprive effectuate judgment. Nor significance instance able receive charge disregard respondent's refused, said would, produce report." 241, 2171-2172 (emphasis added). 26 Petitioner legitimacy requiring argues should imposed. argues, correctly, available. Prejudice minimized granting continuance mistrial investigation; moreover, can deterred disciplinary counsel. 27 true alternative adequate most cases, equally clear instances perpetuate limit State harm One purposes minimize believed. Defendants willing fabricate excuses comply requirement. contempt seem trivial facing threat imprisonment term years. dishonest mislead honest attorney, occasions assumes duty loyalty outweighs elementary obligations 28 presume until affected outcome.18 reasonable something suspect 11th passed. pattern explicable only assumption tainted 29 reject permissible nor us attempt draft comprehensive set standards guide exercise every possible elementary, course, favor. But process, depends reliable rejection unreliable evidence, efficient administration justice, truth-determining weigh balance.19 certainly explanation request trial. reveals omission effectiveness ability adduce rebuttal testimony.20 (1975). 31 simplicity relevant. noted, invoked Lawyers accustomed meeting deadlines. Routine preparation involves location interrogation serving subpoenas whose offered burden adds little routine preparation.21 32 demean construe encompassing automatic presumptively perjured matter how serious be. IV 33 harsh surprise. visit sins upon client. merit. 34 More stake prosecution. impact kind blatant.22 interviewed began Answer Discovery while actual eyewitnesses whom place stand, inference inescapable. Regardless avoided severest appropriate. all, court, prosecutor, vital pollution Evidentiary categories evidence—ranging hearsay fruits illegal searches—may properly enforced prejudicial. revealed gives rise sufficiently there," preclusion.23 strikes heart attorney-client relationship. basic waive fully publicly consent client,24 has—and have—full required approval. protections afforded privilege involve unscrupulous lawyer, highly impracticable require investigation relative responsibilities applying preclusion. responding discovery, candid forthcoming responds, she speaks Putting exceptional ineffective, forgo certain identity greater disavow commenced refrain Discovery. Whenever provided wound 36 37 Affirmed. BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 38 Criminal game. integral quest adjudication guilt innocence. Violations go uncorrected undeterred undermining truthseeking correct deter distorts innocence conclude personally violation, far superior arbitrary disproportionate penalty imposed sanction. Because this, Court's balancing test conflict involving absent personal involvement per se 39 merits, pause explicate take implicit conclusion claims "sufficiently our jurisdiction." Ante, 407, 9. quite agree waived Illinois, appellate claim, ibid., analysis essentially Due ante, 406-407, not, law federal waiver review legal challenge sentence new stating: erred letting Jury." Record 412. stated abused rules." 841, 190-191, 3, 4-5 addressed concerning preclusion, id., 192-193, 6-7, briefs implicitly former asserted latter. alone warrant stating erred" preserved abuse claims. already reached holding identical People Douthit, 51 751, 439, 366 950 (1977). Douthit stated: "Despite excellent constitutionality, applied Rule 415(g)(i) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, par. 415(g)(i)) rule, deem issue, appeal, waived. nothing indicate objection extensive in-chambers discussion summarized above, post-trial requests ground '[t]he call Glen Muench Rocky Reed intoxication commission alleged burglary.' read nonconstitutional exercising Failure raise written constitutes urged reversal review." 753-754, 441-442, 952-953 (citations footnotes omitted; emphasis 42 different districts decided challenges provision fashion, claims, considered constrained deemed 43 mean "[W]e defaults procedural preclude consideration question." Henry 379 443, 447, 85 564, 567, 408 (1965). Specifically, established possesses default Williams Georgia, 349 375, 383-384, 75 814, 819-820, 99 L.Ed. 1161 (1955); Sullivan Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 229, 233-234, 90 400, 402-403, 386 (1969); Henry, 449 5, 568 5. Courts possess power. 615(a) provides: "Plain errors defects affecting substantial noticed [on appeal] brought attention Those frequently rely address, discretion, Jenner, Tone, & Martin, Historical Practice Notes, following Ill.Ann.Stat., ¶ 615 (1985) (citing 1979 1981 examples invoking alone); also, Visnack, 135 113, 118, 89 901, 905, 481 744, 748 (invoking exception despite waiver). Apparently, below declined binding. Since, review, address merits state-law waiver. A. 44 start premise embodies substantive 408-409; 1001, join rejecting assertion Clause." 407. "[i]n prosecutions, enjoy . obtaining favor." supports natural meaningful. For hollow protection government refuse subpoenaed recognized years, useful purpose, implies limitation prevent testifying. lies." (1967) 46 Framers Constitution intend commit futile act giving secure use." 1925]. 47 secured general 298-302, 1047-1049, (1973); Rock Arkansas, 483 44, 51, 2704, 2709, 97 (1987); Crane Kentucky, 476 690-691, 106 2142, 2146-2147, 636 48 Clauses searching whenever seeks "[f]ew Chambers, 1049. undermines central aim system, (1974), misleading convicting innocent person. Surely paramount places acquitting innocent, re Winship, 397 358, 1068, 368 (1970), close scrutiny preventing invalidate restriction example, admit irrelevant, Crane, 689-690, 2146, persons mentally infirm, 23, 1925, 21, represents half-truth, 2171, That sometimes difficult abandoning task altogether. 49 Accordingly, conducted inquiries rationales underlying challenged come date. strike constitutionally unjustifiable "rules whole testifying basis priori unworthy belief," introducing accomplice, 22-23, 1925; statements "were originally subsequently circumstances considerable assurance reliability," 300, 1048; bearing voluntary confession, 688-691, 2145-2147; post-hypnosis Rock, 56-62, 2711-2714. Based thorough law, defined governing Term concluding restrictions " 'accommodate interests process' "arbitrary serve." 55-56, 2711, quoting 295, 1046.1 B 50 then, precluding bears relation violations. answered pointing serves Compare 411—412. utility Brennan, Prosecution: Sporting Event Quest Truth?, 1963 Wash.U.L.Q. 279. By aiding preparation, helps account detect expose attempts falsify prevents factors influencing outcome expense objectives accomplished correcting adverse effects deterring future occurring. violations,2 reason resort "a conscious mandatory distortion fact-finding applied." Weinstein, Some Difficulties Devising Determining Truth Judicial Trials, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 223, 237 (1966). (1) 52 corrective measure hand justifications: tested 411-413; (2) screens inherently disclosed 413-416. introduce discovery. concedes jury, give proffered Brief 18-19. completely precluded 53 Nobles (1958) inapposite. 412-413. sought impeach regarding interviews investigator. 227-229, 2164-2165. ruled unless summarizing interviews. Ibid. rejected because: 54 55 half-truth." 2171 56 Here, contrast, condition demonstrate weaknesses "half-truth" similar reasons, (that person testifies denaturalization proceeding waives Fifth questions cross-examination) 57 Nor, suggestions, 414-417, here justifiable theory presumes finds suspect. place, purport presumption finding Rather, 58 59 60 gave indication based presumptive apparent lack credibility. apparently, generally, Van Dyke, 414 Ill. 251, 254, 111 165, 167 ("The presented, weight [is] determine substitute therefor"), cert. denied, 345 978, 73 1127, 1392 (1953); Village DesPlaines Winkelman, 270 149, 159, 110 N.E. 417, (1915) ("[I]t greatest weight, them"). deems untrustworthy, comment jury.3 interpreting 415(g) suggests special presumed unreliability. 61 addition, antithetical principles laid down 20-23, 1923-1925, reaffirmed 53-55, 2710-2711. criticized disqualified litigation having "effect suppressing truth," 20, 1924, that: 62 "[D]isqualifications rested unstated premises subordinate perjury, erroneous decisions best perjured, crucial 63 '. [T]he likely arrived competent understanding knowledge involved leaving credit determined court.'. 64 ". [W]e believe [the latter] reasoning Amendment." 21-22, 1924-1925, Rosen 245 467, 471, 150, 406 (1918). 65 2710-2711 (quoting restating above). Texas accordingly belief" unconstitutional. 22, 1925. trustworthy persons, surely listening presumptions accomplice's indicia reliability, (1973), posthypnosis supra—all declared 414-417. method, law4 concern reliability inform casting allowing wants attach testimony.5 undisputed; defense's 67 Leaving deterrence aside moment, clearly serve—advancing truth. Alternative sanctions—namely, concealment—can sanctions, unlike distort 68 69 Of measures. punitive measures taking place. Otherwise, seek advantages purposefully orders. caught corrected cost 425; ante 411—412, long run, conceivably Without means violations, continually interrupted distracted continuances 411. 70 light direct measures, good reason, complicity, countenance punishment point keep operates deterrent extent effect employs part distorted cause convict crime commit. Witness punishes disproportionate—it result charged capital offense receiving death received violation—and arbitrary—it might, another suffering change verdict or, offense, suspended sentence. (such responsible, proceedings) graduate correspond violation. 71 highlighted falls bore responsibility ample willfully 413(d),6 played role effort leaves distinct impression main excluded belief lied located 25-28. 72 Worse yet, actions cases. wilful blatently so." 74 recognizes problem, offers cryptic statement "[u]nrelated normally curtailing complete 416, 22. left wonder why abnormal improper upheld. absence attorney's directly sanctioning fairer 413—414. proceedings, fines, behavior indirect threatened evidentiary exclusion. Such Rather punishing 415(g)(i), sanctioned 415(g)(ii), "Wilful subject (threatening proceedings). Direct particularly since obligation defendant, attorney: providing State, "defense furnish known intends ." Ill.Sup.Ct. 413(d) 76 situation caused because, points out, 413—414, face prospect lengthy arguably impossible contempt. obligated remand factfinding responsibility. Deities father son, 77 resolved analogizing stand 410, bound fall short ineffective counsel, suggested punished differences errors. Tactical products choice among options. them, operating choose course benefit appear erroneous, penalizing miscalculations generally futility usually visible hindsight—at obvious "incorrect" choice, one. words, often want later, capable untimely introduction systemically disrupting trials, deliberations, final verdicts. circumstances, treating binds disruption—not binding deters better default, definition, eliminates disruption. operation outlined above. punish If, evident time, behavior, malpractice. bind establishing malpractice attorneys' An faced includes option. approval," 418, irrelevant approve Further, hindsight, Consequently, amenable engaging disrupt steps inflict (and level imposed) primarily turns assessment culpability than, defaults, system. concealing misconduct, instances, knows occurs. 415(g)(ii). And turned culpability. 25-28; Rayford, 283, 286, 941, 944, 1274, 1277 (1976) (exclusion deliberate). inadvertent.7 C 79 short, scenario distorting couple proportional actor it. case-by-case approach constitutional. 80 approach, unfortunate creating placed behalf is: "Don't witness—punish me personally." became noticeably timid once commission. 28-29. argue: "Sure, commission; that's much get acquitted." expect vigorous advocates clients own.8 81 seems ironic Members expressed misgivings costs exclusionary contexts. important turn Harlan termed "fundamental society worse let guilty free." 372, 1077 (concurring opinion). 82 important, helping acquit innocent. Precluding subverts basing convictions served sanctions. today sacrifices values misguided unnecessary preserve sanctity convicted. know, brother's hands weapons evening—and 5-day delay witness, prison. dissent. 83 84 BRENNAN's understanding—at part—that confined reach reciprocal-discovery wish express noncompliance kinds as, notice-of-alibi occasion factual context provides, part: "In prosecutions. 17-19, 1922-1923, pertinent "Subject filing defenses information possession control: "(i) together recorded statements, memoranda reporting These men, Earl Luther Taylor, participants fight. "During your Honor, did, fact, incident. ask Who they? "MR. VAN: guy Wrdely which— DEFENDANT: Excuse me, W-r-d-e-l-y. Whose have. I'm tonight. Berkhalter." 12. Yeah, there, now telling you Berkhalter, he's Wrdely. Why didn't sometime ago? He's you. correct, Judge. He, ago. problem Alfred." 12-13. "There's sorts people before. "When up there's allegation thought there. it's types be—should sheet I'll worry tomorrow." 13-14. Berkhalter appear. "Q. What, anything learn standing crowd? "A. Well, blanket. pistols to— what, anything, recall? saying people. Say time? left. happening weapons." 19. decline jurisdiction inadequately specifically articulate rehearing argued constitutional: violation." Argument Appellant 84-1073 (App.Ct.Ill.), reliance clear. cited relied upon, through quotation decision, (1967), quoted, 1274 (1976), Rayford limited situations "due defense," 286-287, added), citing Washington, supra. generic reference Fourteenth unidentified Bill Rights, manner understood jurisdiction. Clinton, Right Present Defense: Emergent Constitutional Guarantee Ind.L.Rev. 711, 767 (1976). J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2191, pp. 68-70 (J. McNaughton rev. 1961). "Mr. Burke moved proposition off session, served, defence. Hartley said, securing Government could; remainder lie Smith, South Carolina, regulation in, MR. BURKE's taken lost; ayes 9, noes 41." Annals Cong. 756 (1789). Particulars varied state, provisions principle. Three states emphasized guaranteeing 'to favour.' power, 'all proofs favorable' him. North Carolina combined confrontation, accusers testimony.' Delaware sworn examine oath New Jersey opted equality parties: '[A]ll criminals admitted privileges prosecutors entitled to.' Maryland consolidated interests, [his] oath,' witnesses.' "Some originated English statutes, colonial enactments, original. Regardless, meaningful opportunity, advantageous prosecution, elements pressed vigorously framers Rights sixth amendment distinctive formulation own." Westen, Mich.L.Rev. 71, 94-95 (1974) (footnotes omitted). commentator noted: charges him, speedy tried assisted confronted restrain regulating procedures presents accused. own. comes play exclusively initiative aid 74. witnesses], accused, fairness ascertainment innocence." "Notice-of-alibi large growing number liberal maximum amount prepare thereby reduces See, 279; American Bar Association Project Standards Justice, Procedure Trial 23-43 (Approved Draft 1970); Goldstein, Accused: Balance Advantage Procedure, Yale L.J. 1149 (1960). growth devices salutary development which, increasing parties, enhances system." Wardius Oregon, 412 470, 473-474, 2208, 2211, "Given ease alibi fabricated, legitimate. Reflecting interest, provisions, dating 1927, existence States. hardly end itself; yet poker game players cards played. room 'due concerned, instant Florida enhance search insuring investigate Florida, 399 78, 81-82, 1893, 1896, 446 (1970) Lloyd Gill, F.2d 585, 587 (CA5 1969) (motion "may granted, diligence cumulative impeaching"); Ragnar Benson, Inc. Kassab, 325 591, 594 (CA3 1963) ("[C]ourts indulge favor validity verdict"); Rowlik Greenfield, F.Supp. 997, 1001 (ED Pa.1949) ("[N]ew trials losing theretofore unknown attorney"). Fendler Goldsmith, 728 1181, 1188-1190 (CA9 1983) (giving prejudice, willful). objections disclosing Note, Preclusion Sanction—A Violation Defense, 1342, 1350 (1972). objections, and, resolution, Under Federal adopted protective objecting request. Fed. Crim.Proc. 16(d)(1); 412(i). requirement objected us, added pressures leading action. most, compelled accelerate timing disclosure, forcing divulge date beginning planned Nothing entitles await announcing jury's case-in-chief deciding himself." 85, 1898. trials. contributed trustworthiness 11th-hour Unrelated reserved measure; civil limits flagrant uncooperative demonstrates 'deliberate contumacious unwarranted authority.' (Schwartz Moats, 596, 599, 277 529, 531; Department Transportation Mainline Center, 538, 347 837.) reasons restricting defendants, (Washington 1920]. .) 'Few defense.' (Chambers 302 [93 1049]. .)." Ill.App.3d, 1277. Brookhart Janis, 384 7-8, 86 1245, 1248-1249, 314 (1966) (defendant's plead cross-examine consent); Doughty 470 69, (Ind.1984) (record show "personal communication chooses relinquish [to trial] );" Cross 117 U.S.App.D.C. 629 (1963) (waiver trial). derived articulated one's extended others. 52-53, 2709-2710. supplies broad array sanctions: disclosed, grant continuance, enter circumstances. "(ii) Wilful Santucci, Ill.2d 93, 98, 180 491, 493 (1962) ("Ultimate fairly province judge, convey opinions matters jurors word deed"); Heidorn, 114 933, 936, 568, 572 (1983) ("While wide comments insinuations, conduct, indicative ."). 288, 945, 1278 forbidding force comment. Ill.2d, 493; 937, 572. judge's lacks implicate usurps assessing credit. Tuesday, 27, 1984, previously. Wednesday, five days name unusual 1277, lies (1986) (case below). note uncertainty, spawn litigation, supervise lower courts. disadvantage inviting ineffective-assistance-of-counsel applied. yield

Category: 0