Document: 400 U.S. 74 91 S.Ct. 210 27 L.Ed.2d 213 A. L. DUTTON, Wardenv.Alex S. EVANS. No. 10. Argued Oct. 15, 1969. Reargued 1970. Decided Dec. Syllabus Appellee was convicted of first-degree murder following a trial in which one Shaw testified, over objection, concerning statement Williams (an alleged accomplice) had made the prison where both were incarcerated, after Williams' return there from his arraignment, that it not been for appellee 'we wouldn't be this now.' There 19 other prosecution witnesses, whom (another gave detailed eyewitness testimony crime and participation therein. Shaw's admitted under Georgia statute which, as construed by Supreme Court, Evans v. State, 222 Ga. 392, 150 S.E.2d 240, allows into evidence coconspirator's out-of-court during concealment phase conspiracy. Following affirmance conviction brought habeas corpus proceeding federal court. The District Court denied writ but Appeals reversed, holding violated appellee's right to confrontation secured Sixth Fourteenth Amendments. contends hearsay exception is unconstitutional since differs applicable conspiracy trials courts, applies only if coconspirator course furtherance Held: judgment reversed. Pp. 80-90; 93-100. 5 Cir., F.2d 826, Mr. Justice STEWART, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, BLACKMUN, concluded that: 1 1. applied invalid Confrontation Clause Amendment, States Fourteenth, merely because does coincide with narrower results, exercise Court's rule-making power respecting law evidence. 80-83. 2 2. In circumstances case admission did result any denial bore indicia reliability fully warranted its being placed before jury. 83-90. 3 HARLAN exceptions rule against must evaluated, (which designed cope many factors involved passing on evidentiary rules), due process standards Fifth Thus constitutional declaration interest here evinces some likelihood trustworthiness exclusion therefore essential fair trial. 4 Alfred Evans, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., appellant. Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold United States, amicus curiae, special invitation Court. 6 Robert B. Thompson, Gainesville, appellee. 7 STEWART announced an opinion BLACKMUN join. 8 Early April morning 1964, three police officers brutally murdered Gwinnett County, Georgia. Their bodies found few hours later, handcuffed together pine thicket, each multiple gunshot wounds back head. After months investigation, authorities charged appellee, two men, Wade Truett Venson Williams, officers' murders. indicted grand jury; granted immunity testimony. 9 pleaded guilty exercised tried separately. jury trial, he sentenced death.1 affirmed Georgia,2 certiorari.3 then present district court, alleging, among things, at writ,4 Circuit had, indeed, right, guaranteed Amendments, 'to confronted witnesses him.'5 From appeal we noted probable jurisdiction.6 originally argued last Term, set reargument. 397 1060, 90 1494, 25 682. 10 order understand context question us, brief review proceedings Evans' necessary. principal witness Truett, accomplice who has immunity. described length detail surrounding officers. He testified he, along engaged switching license plates stolen car parked road County when they accosted As youngest leaned front inspect ignition switch car, grabbed officer's gun holster. disarmed gunpoint, them together. They took woods killed firing several bullets their extremely close range. addition prosecution.7 Defense counsel given full opportunity cross-examine witness, respect most them. 11 One 20 man named Shaw. fellow prisoners penitentiary Georgia, time arraigned charges murdering said returned asked Williams: 'How you make out court?' responded, 'If hadn't dirty son-of-a-bitch Alex objected introduction upon ground thus violative confrontation. objection overruled, cross-examined length. 12 relating what told him upheld basis provides: 'After fact shall proved, declarations conspirators pendency criminal project admissible all.'8 appellate court put it: 13 "The so long conceal committed or identity perpetrators offense continues parties such are considered much unit either other.' defendant, co-conspirator, made, still concealing identity, keeping secret deceased, denying guilt. sufficient establish prima facie steal automobile killing deceased while carrying conspiracy, actual commission crime, continued admissible.'9 (Citations omitted.) 14 This accord consistent line decisions construing state statute. See, e.g., Chatterton 221 424, 144 726, cert. denied, 384 1015, 86 16 1036; Burns 191 60, 73, 350, 358. 15 It formed claim upholding claim, regarded duty 'not interpret framers' original concept light historical developments, also translate due-process terms boundaries rule.'10 (Footnotes could find no 'salient cogent reasons' case, pointed broader than courts.11 then, whether correct aside considering question, start recognizing squarely held 'the Amendment's accused confront * fundamental obligatory Amendment.' Pointer Texas, 380 400, 403, 85 1065, 1068, 923. See Douglas Alabama, 415, 1074, 934; Brook-hart Janis, 1, 1245, 314; Barber Page, 390 719, 88 1318, 255; Roberts Russell, 392 293, 1921, 1100; Illinois Allen, 337, 1057, 353; California Green, 399 149, 1930, 26 489. But more beginning our inquiry. 17 argued, nor be, requires can ever introduced. itself, referred have approved hearsay: 18 'This recognized admissibility dying declarations, Mattox 146 140, 151, 50, 53, 36 L.Ed. 917, former 156 237, 240—244, 338—340, 39 409. Dowdell supra, (325), 330, 31 (590), 592; (55 753); Kirby 174 (47), 61, (574), 579, (43 890). analogous situations might fall within scope requiring witnesses.'12 argument seems rather, Constitution reappraisal every rule, matter how established, determine whether, words Appeals, supported reasons.' logic position would seem require reassessment established exception, state, constitutionally identically conform courts. challenge do validity That rules identical readily conceded. settled conspirator subsequent period nothing enterprise. Lutwak 344 604, 73 481, 97 593; Krulewitch 336 440, 69 716, 93 790. hand, permits even though 21 follow courts declined extend include statements extension automatically violates Clause. Last Term 489, said: 22 'Our task decide these positions, purely evidence, sounder. issue us considerably defendant's him' necessarily inconsistent State's decision change *. While may conceded generally protect similar values, quite different thing suggest overlap complete less codification existed historically common law. Our never congruence; once violation values arguably exception. converse equally true: long-established lead automatic conclusion rights denied.' Id., 155—156, S.Ct., 1933—1934 (citations footnote omitted). 23 These observations particular force case. For indicated limited contours required To contrary, limits simply defined area evidence.13 clear product, 'disfavor' 'attempts broaden already pervasive wide-sweeping nets prosecutions.' Grunewald 353 391, 404, 77 963, 974, 931. Grunewald, Krulewitch, cases clear, intertwined, substantive related issues impact limitations prosecutions. 24 policy questions present. prosecuted murder.14 At State permitted well-recognized law.15 We cannot say exactly decidedly II alternatively, event recent reversed convictions primarily relies supra; Brookhart supra. appeared Phillips victim robbery Texas. preliminary hearing, 'as chief version detail, identifying petitioner robbed gunpoint.' U.S., 401, 1066. lawyer hearing try Phillips. Pointer's introduce transcript Phillips' hearing. Thus, held, 'use benefit counsel's cross-examination him.' 1067. decided same day Pointer, flagrant Douglas' prosecutor himself read 'entire document' purporting accomplice's written confession refused testify reliance privilege compulsory self-incrimination. 'The document Solicitor recited considerable leading crime; crucial importance, person fired shotgun blast wounded victim.' 417, 1076. reversing conviction, self-incrimination 'created situation improperly infer true.' 419, 1077. Yet, inference reading (the tested cross-examination. Similarly, imputed Ibid. Janis Page further afield. 'denied all him,' that, additionally, 'there introduced confession, co-defendants court.' 4, 1247. waiver, properly wholesale 'denial without waiver error first magniture *.' 3, 1246. 'principal evidence' judge terms, 'unavailable.' 'has explained arising necessity 722, 1320, Oklahoma invoke use showing 'a good-faith effort' obtain witness' presence 725, 1322. 28 Russell doctrine Bruton 391 123, 1620, 476, retroactive effect. far now us. joint co-defendant, coincidentally charge armed postal robbery. A inspector confessed was, concedeedly, wholly inadmissible petitioner. testify. Although instructed disregard petitioner's guilt, conviction. primary focus presented reasonably expected followed judge's instructions. '(t)he risk prejudice serious Douglas,' powerfully incriminating extrajudicial codefendant, stands side-by-side deliberately spread trial.' 127, 135—136, 1628. Accordingly, 'in accept limiting instructions adequate substitute cross-examination.' 137, 'any rule,' careful emphasize intimate view whatever raise Clause.' 128 n. 1624. 29 apparent stem roots.16 equated two,17 decline now. confine ourselves, instead, deciding 30 involve sense 'crucial' 'devastating,' just discussed. use, misuse, coercive atmosphere official interrogation, Douglas, Brookhart, Bruton, Roberts. suggestion prosecutorial misconduct negligence, Barber. paper transcript, And certainly cross-examination, Brookhart. prosecution. important far, details triple great Of single here. conversation about prisoner Atlanta Penitentiary. vigorously effectively defense counsel.18 His testimony, peripheral signficance most, co-conspirator statutory obviously applications Clause, conclude application violate Constitution. 32 deprived actually Neither arise used prove made. prevent testifying heard; rather restriction proof through statements. viewpoint oath, subject whose demeanor observed trier fact, reliable informant seen heard.19 33 arises invited implicitly identified perpetrator blamed predicament. identity. First, contained express assertion past consequently carried face warning giving undue weight. Second, personal knowledge role participants abundantly Truett's prior inconceivable shown know murder. Third, possibility founded faulty recollection remote extreme. Fourth, give reason suppose misrepresent involvement crime. go beyond lie spontaneous, penal it. widely viewed determinative declarant. 34 mission advance practical concern accuracy truth-determining assuring (has) satisfactory evaluating truth statement.' 161, 1936. exercised, effectively, factual heard related. conceivably statement, unreliable unreal. 35 Almost 40 years ago, Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 54 78 674, Cardozo wrote refusing claimed closing worth repeating here: 'There danger will contempt—that discredit touch immunities assured Amendment—if gossamer possibilities defendant nullify sentence pronounced competent jurisdiction obedience local law, free.' 122, 338. 37 remanded consideration proceeding.20 38 ordered. Judgment remanded. JUSTICE joins, concurring. 41 I join STEWART'S opinion. me, however, additional result. 42 attributed prolonged litigation, my entire record, harmless all. Furthermore, utterance incredible hurt, helped, prosecution's On alone, persuaded reverse remand. 43 remark 'went room hospital' preceding day. stated custody Atlanta; worked clerk hospital; lying bed facing wall; Shaw, hall spoke Williams; door 'was closed'; opening inches square; piece plate glass, window ordinary steel mesh'; impede talking door; talks normal voice door. earlier reference glass 44 Carmen David Mabry, called Public Health Service stationed 'and wire mesh, heavy 'never talk door'; knowledge, 'other people hospital, hopital records disclosed out. 45 am loss jury, assume been, led believe, let alone influenced by, astonishing account closed hospital note, also, Circuit's description 'somewhat incredible' possessing 'basic incredibility.' F.2d, 828 4. 46 saying this, aware panel went observe, cited, '(W)e convinced harmless.' Quillian, sole dissent direct stated, '(I)t prejudicial defendant.' 408, 251. However, neither Superior Federal Judge petition Also, attitude majority, strictly 402, S.E.2d, 248, presumably occasion alternative harmlessness. usually refrain kind adversely appeals, judges free draw cold record 47 add observation corroboration. Marion Calvin Perry, another numerous convictions, including 'larceny automobiles,' known years, years; days murders officers; owed money; talked telephone '(a)bout me stealing cars him'; 'Alex (Evans) (Williams) want'; later 'me didn't want mess (Williams)'; said, 'if got any, get seven eight 'still Oldsmobile switch'; week should receive car; six saw filling station; murders; 'I wanted it, see mine your friend'; 'got mad hell' 'told thought knowed anything keep damn mouth shut.' 48 Another Lawrence H. Hartman, 1963 red hardtop home night 16, 1964 place early 17). burning near scene tragedy automobile. acquisition wrecked like model color; towing damaged wrecker manned Evans; replacement good tires Chevrolet occupied recapped purchased 49 bears directly positively Williams-Evans-Truett car-stealing accomplishments provides indisputable confirmation Evan's role. requirements corroboration satisfied fades legal insignificance. 50 here, exists, reasonable doubt. Chapman California, 386 18, 21—25, 87 824, 826—829, 705; Harrington 395 250, 89 1726, 284. 51 HARLAN, concurring 52 Not surprisingly difficult produced opinions. finds 'wholly unreal' weakened effect jury's mind. view, harmless, seemingly deems fabricated credence. MARSHALL answers suggestions satisfaction, adopts accept. apparently introducing unless regardless hearsay. 53 difficulty assumption core purpose Amendment overly broad rule. believe wrong. Contrary things 172, 1942, 489 (1970), become Wigmore states says: prescribe kinds testimonial (dying like) infra-judicially,—this depends Evidence being,—but mode procedure followed—i.e. cross-examining procedure—in infra-judicially.' J.Wigmore, § 1397, 131 (3d ed. 1940) (footnote 55 conversion clause intended regulate threat existing future developments field unnatural shift, paradigmatic evil aimed at—trial affidavit1—can almost well gross affiant him. however natural shift carries seeds mischief enlightened development 56 If language today, read: 'In prosecutions, enjoy Nothing 18th-century equivalent connote control particularly ill-chosen prohibition hearsay—the toward Brother driven, although yet embrace 57 Nor content concurrence preferential avoid possible so—in words, produce available witnesses. Further facts presenting issue, Green not, happy intent Framers absent compelling linguistic pointing direction. understanding furnishes solid guide adjudication.2 58 production significantly curtail eliminate declarants unduly inconvenient small utility defendant. Examples come mind Business Records Act, U.S.C. §§ 1732—1733, statements, learned treatises, trade reports. Uniform Rules 63(15), 63(30), 63(31); Gilstrap 389 (CA5 1968) (business records); Kay 255 476 (CA4 1958) (laboratory analysis). commend itself declarant likely difficult, unavailing, pointless. unusual cases, hand example, guarantees defendants Washington 388 14, 1920, 1019 (1967), extends protection defendants.3 59 Regardless interpretation puts taking weighed appropriateness failure STEWART's explain standard tests squared absolute command clause, suited. appropriately performed aegis Amendments' commands trials, respectively, conducted accordance test evidence.4 60 everything position. approach results reached. major 'confrontation' prior-recorded testimony.5 absence countervailing circumstances, affront meaning therefore, satisfy requirement clause. correctness those taken. 61 Passing 325, 590, 592, 753 (1911), prohibit '(d)ocumentary collateral facts, law.' characterized problem speak, correct. 314 (1966), Smith Illinois, 129, 748, 956 (1968), restrictions right. 934 (1965), perhaps easily dealt viewing misconduct. Alternatively, prepared hold resulting formal interrogation guilt accused, circumstance indicating authorization adoption. dates least Tong's Case, Kelying 17, 18—19, 84 Eng.Rep. 1061, 1062 (K.B.1663), universally accepted. theory (1968). 62 remaining significance 47, 574, 890 (1899). men theft Kirby's goods receiving stolen. theft, all, judgments. Accord, Wigmore, 1079, 133. Indeed, lack heart hardly doubted, think, based wrong theory. 63 Judging challenged process, sustained. Accomplishment main object seldom terminate community conspirators. Declarations evince trustworthiness. guidance counsel, alert obvious dangers crediting matter, proved reveals remain hidden declarant's invocation self-incrimination.6 considerations, weighing type credit increase determinations truth. suggested possessed peculiar characteristic lessen general considerations require, residual discretion exclude inflammatory. Exclusion done commends Due Process more. 64 premises discussed opinion, concur reversal below. 65 MARSHALL, BLACK, DOUGLAS, BRENNAN join, dissenting. 66 allowed testify, strenuous separate trial.1 According implicated immediately arraignment. witness. Nevertheless, today concludes partner deny Amendments doing, majority reaches completely opinions especially apply rights. 67 923 offered affording requirement, Barder basically includes weigh witness.' 68 principles strikingly one. There, trials. (Loyd) second (Douglas). Loyd pending doing Without reaching invoked,2 prosecutor's Loyd's purported attempt refresh memory 'Loyd course, provided regarding statement. 'But tended show itself.'3 420, Surely, reasoning compels significant difference between insofar concerned, call plainly willingly regard Shaw.4 70 Finally, 'despite implicating determining codefendant's innocence, codefendant 1100 prisoner, Evans. 71 teaching clear: Absent allegedly 72 characterizes picture account. doubt, article skeptical faith profession, categorical prophecy clearly demonstrate fuller corrective makes possible. plurality pigeonholes 'spontaneous' utterance, hence believed. concluded, doubt him.5 Moreover, remains anything, meant recounted. concedes ambiguous. Plainly accusation sort: Evans,' according unsworn arisen enmities own enforcement activities stirred up locality. Did relate powerful unscrupulous enemies, murderer? opts latter interpretation, 'against interest' distance events, certain. point himself, left unelucidated, damning, patently damaging unanswered aid answering: What say, mean, truth? cross-examined, explored matters. evaluated demeanor. able confronting precisely prevented. confrontation, authority form, trial—though differentiate cases—are surely irrelevant. Other factors,6 why limited. 75 enough 'under mean way similarly established. succeeds distinguishing considers inevitably conflicts rules. Rather, attempts buttress announcing reluctance equate Clause.7 76 implies unrelenting hostility classified note reality traditional so-called coconspirators exception,8 decision. incriminatory inculpating termed abridgment Since justification cf. 407, 1069, Alabama Surely denies Brethren conclusion. Carried logical end, provide avoidance Bruton,9 reaffirms. says, very establishing equation seeks avoid—an 'permanent niche Constitution' form well. distinguishes gound 'does 'devastating." Despite characterization 'of most,' real. outcome rested, essence, immunized Relying 'you lawfully convict alone. (T)he corroborated. connect act.' number corroborate supposedly undoubtedly part corroborating evidence.10 79 upset Appeals' finding erroneous, harmless. Beyond apart error, undertakes inquiry, understand, 'devastating.' is, apparently, falling short high bring moment clamor Bill Rights. eschew worries inquiry questions: Was afforded him? And, doubt? 80 questioned correctly prohibits result, guise refreshing instruction 81 troubled reversal, unable principled reach decisions, shifts begins hunt 'indicia reliability' cling remark, Whether himself. easy much, ask independent vitality protecting exposed assessment trial.11 sunk bearing indicium probative in, need truth-discovering Cf. 161—162, 1936 1937, (1970). meager lame 'indicia' necessary rampaging tramples flexibility innovation state's specter specter.12 hitherto consider effect, common-law exceptions, global dimension presented. 1623. inherently declarant, falls genuine 82 entitled accorded guarantee affirm Williams. agree death 20, infra. 240. 385 953, 336, 231. unreported. Dutton, 440 827. 393 1076, 862, 770. Since, appear, relied applied, 1254(2). Three rebuttal four lengthy Ga.Code Ann. 38—306 (1954). 248. 829. 830, 831. 1069 1070. Salinger 272 542, 548, 173, 175, 398. 3771. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. taken orally open otherwise act Congress competency privileges governed, except provide, interpreted experience.' Hawkins 358 74, 136, 125. advised recognize offense. unique. Reed People, Colo. 450, 402 P.2d 68; Dailey 233 Ala. 384, 171 So. 729; Roberts, 95 Kan. 280, 147 P. 828. F. Wharton, Criminal 430 (12th 1955): acts wrongful act, perpetration concealment. persons conspire commit freedom apprehension, commission: devolves thereof arrest implication.' existence 444, 718. provision principle origin reaction abuses Sir Walter Raleigh. Heller, 104 (1951). Note, Hearsay Rule, Yale L.J. 1434: 'Despite superficial similarity eager Present merit permanent Constitution; ripeness reform unifying theme literature. Bentham authors Evidence, agreed keeps courtroom. unknown proportions, reformers grapple centuries inertia well.' 1436. cast credibility and, particularly, place. subpoena Counsel informed oral subpoenaed best interests client. penalty imposed out, qualified Witherspoon 510, 1170, 776. aside, Witherspoon, accomplice. 797, 804—805. 179, 1946 (concurring opinion): historically, constitutionalize barrier abuses, anonymous accusers, absentee witnesses.' id., 175—179, 176 8, 1943—1946, 1944 opinion). conclusion, Tr. Oral Arg. 51, 55. Reliance Clauses virtue subjecting scrutiny civil alike. exceedingly rare turn nature. 16—17. feature jurisprudence indication testing Reynolds 98 145, 244 (1879); 409 (1895); Motes 178 458, 993, 1150 (1900); West Louisiana, 194 258, 650, 965 (1904); (1965); (1968); Quite Malloy Hogan, 378 1489, 653 (1964), privilege. 1877, Art. I, VI, 'No compelled tending manner criminate himself,' appears constitution. Ga.Const. 1945, VI. previously Marshall Riley, 367 (1849). trial; anticipated admission. question—which presents conflict privilege—might Under availability 172—189, 1942 1951, (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring), compel timing immunity, decided. Comment, Exercise Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Witnesses Codefendants: Effect Upon Accused, U.Chi.L.Rev. 165 (1965). 1246, (1966). My comments courthouse subpoena. so, believing stand incriminate Be may, running risks 2, submitted notable 'its basic second, Constitutionalization 'all exceptions,' 174, 1943 opinion), prospect frightening Much complexity afflicting comes definition stated—a nowhere adopted purposes. looking 'cross-examination included certain types suspect highly 'threats trial' directed,' 'conspiracy' element came goes exists 'concealment phase' jurisdictions. negates notion authorized speak assumed achieve unlawful aim concert effort. conceive arraigned. Fiswick 329 211, 217, 224, 227, 196 (1946), 'admission apprehended sence frustration it.' lower essentially admitted. 115 Ga.App. 685, 155 655 (1967). 9, pre-trial admissions coconspirator, Darden 172 158 S.E. 414 (1931), Mitchell 292, 756 (1952), confessions codefendants admissible. resolved favor erroneously concluding co-conspirators apprehended.' Pinion 225 36, 37, 708, 709 710 (1969). Park 618, 170 687 (1969), filed, November 1969, 57, O.T. 1970 (renumbered). Trial Record 412—413. graphically revealed juxtaposing quotations. albeit studiedly mild: '(T)he *' (Emphasis added.) testimony: 'Slight extraneous source participator support verdict.' whole impossible 'beyond doubt' complained contribute verdict obtained. 24, 828, 705 (1967); 251, 1727, 284 directness adopting, distinction irrational unreasonable rulings. Needless measured concededly having 7,

Category: 0