Document: 410 U.S. 284 93 S.Ct. 1038 35 L.Ed.2d 297 Leon CHAMBERS, Petitioner,v.State of MISSISSIPPI. No. 71—5908. Argued Nov. 15, 1972. Decided Feb. 21, 1973. Syllabus After petitioner was arrested for murder, another person (McDonald) made, but later repudiated, a written confession. On three separate occasions, each time to different friend, McDonald orally admitted the killing. Petitioner convicted murder in trial that he claimed lacking due process because not allowed (1) cross-examine (whom had called as witness when State failed do so), since under Mississippi's common-law 'voucher' rule party may impeach his own witness, or (2) introduce testimony persons whom confessed, court having ruled their inadmissible hearsay. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. Held: Under facts and circumstances this case, denied fair trial, violation Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 294—303. (a) application prevented petitioner, through cross-examination McDonald, from exploring McDonald's prior oral confessions challenging renunciation confession, thus deprived right contradict clearly 'adverse.' 295—298. (b) erred excluding hearsay statements, which were critical petitioner's defense bore substantial assurances trustworthiness, including made spontaneously close acquaintance, corroborated by other evidence real sense against interest, present available State. 298 303. Miss., 252 So.2d 217, reversed remanded. Peter Westen pro hac vice, special leave Court. Timmie Hancock, Meadville, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 Petitioner, Chambers, tried jury murdering policeman. assessed punishment at life imprisonment, affirmed, one justice dissenting. 217 (1971). Pending disposition certiorari Court, granted bail order Circuit Justice, dated February 1, Two weeks later, on State's request reconsideration, reaffirmed. 405 1205, 92 751, 30 773 (1972). Subsequently, petition granted, 987, 1272, 31 453 (1972), consider whether conducted accord with principles We conclude it not. 2 * events led prosecution occurred small town Woodville southern Mississippi. Saturday evening, June 14, 1969, two policemen, James Forman Aaron 'Sonny' Liberty, entered local bar pool hall execute warrant arrest youth named C. Jackson. Jackson resisted hostile crowd some 50 60 gathered. officers' first attempt handcuff frustrated 20 25 men intervened wrestled him free. then radioed assistance Liberty removed riot gun, 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun, car. Three deputy sheriffs arrived shortly thereafter officers again attempted make arrest. Once more, attacked onlookers during commotion five six pistol shots fired. looking direction shooting began, immediately saw been shot several times back. Before died, turned around fired both barrels gun into an alley area appeared have come. wild high scattered standing face alley. appeared, however, take more deliberate aim before second hit back head neck ran down That man Chambers. 3 Officer could see vantage point who Liberty's anyone. One testified feet Chambers shoot him. Another sheriff stated that, although hand, did 'break arm down' fall they thought dead no effort either examine search weapon. Instead, attended placed police car taken hospital where declared arrival. A subsequent autopsy showed four bullets .22-caliber revolver. 4 Shortly after shooting, Chambers' friends discovered yet dead. Williams,1 Berkley Turner, Gable loaded transported same hospital. Later night, county still alive, guard outside room. subsequently charged murder. He pleaded guilty has asserted innocence throughout. 5 story is intertwined man, McDonald. lifelong resident Woodville, evening death. Sometime day, left wife moved Louisiana found job sugar mill. In November year, returned informed acquaintance his, known Reverend Stokes, wanted Stokes owned gas station Natchez, Mississippi, miles north upon return went talking agreed statement attorneys, maintained offices Natchez. days attorneys' gave sworn confession Liberty. also already told friend Williams, said used pistol, nine-shot revolver, discarded shooting. response questions affirmed voluntary compelled come them. transcribed, signed, witnessed, over authorities jail. 6 month preliminary hearing, repudiated persuaded confess promised would go jail share proceeds lawsuit bring Woodville. examination attorney State, swore scene street drinking beer cafe Turner. When Turner heard testified, walked up lying He, Williams took further hearing know what happened, there discussion about going coming hospital, until next day learned felled blast gun. addition, while once lost many months possess weapon time. peace accepted repudiation released custody. undertook investigation possible involvement. 7 case came October year.2 At endeavored develop grounds defense. show Only officer actually fire shots. Although assumed attacker, none them examined alive possessed Indeed, ever recovered proof pistol. near shot, sure 8 Petitioner's only partially successful, efforts supporting Sam Hardin, McDonald's, cousins, hand. addition these witnesses, repeatedly confessed crime. prove responsibility counsel occasion private conversations friends. 9 large measure, thwarted portion strict certain rules evidence. asserts unsuccessfully motion new appeal evidentiary rendered fundamentally unfair law.3 It necessary, therefore, carefully rulings trial. II 10 filed pretrial requesting appear. sought ruling if itself chose call be adverse witness. Attached copies transcript requiring appear reserved adverse-witness motion. put stand, laid predicate introduction out-of-court evidence, read jury. cross-examination, elicited fact crime promise sizable tort recovery town. retold actions visit street, absence period, trip 11 conclusion renewed motion, stating: 'He hostile, word, so your will overruled.' appeal, upheld court's ruling, finding 'McDonald's appellant' '(n)owhere finger Chambers.' So.2d, 220. 12 Defeated challenge directly witnesses officer. these, night spent late hours friend's house driving home objected admission ground sustained objection.4 13 occurred, testify. jury's presence, without objection, vafe any beers excused. jury, recounted riding anything regarding 'shot him.' week met house, reminded conversation urged 'mess up.' argued especially corroborative Turner's self-incriminating remarks should exception rule. Again, objection. 14 third Albert Carter, neighbor. They years. Carter morning out well disposed revolver night. accompanied Natchez purchased .22 replace discarded.5 wsa hear Carter's testimony. statements admissible, objected, objection.6 approved lower exclusion witnesses' grounds. 15 sum, then, predicament. As consequence combination 'party witness' its rule, unable behalf discredited demonstrated complicity. had, chipped away fringes introducing admissible sources indicating seen started, But all remained single countered arguably acceptable renunciation. far less persuasive than might given opportunity subject admitted. III 16 accused criminal is, essence, defend accusations. rights confront one's long recognized essential process. Black, writing re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, L.Ed. 682 (1948), identified among minimum essentials trial: 17 'A person's reasonable notice charge him, defense—a court—are basic our system jurisprudence; include, minimum, offer testimony, represented counsel.' See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 471, 488—489, 2593, 2603—2604, 33 484 (1972); Jenkins McKeithen, 395 411, 428—429, 89 1843, 1852—1853, 23 404 (1969); Specht Patterson, 386 605, 610, 87 1209, 1212, 18 326 (1967). Both elements are implicated case. A. damning alibi cross-examination. test recollection, probe details alibi, 'sift' conscience judge worthy belief. Mattox United States, 156 237, 242—243, 337, 339—340, 39 409 (1895). desirable procedure. implicit constitutional confrontation, helps assure 'accuracy truth-determining process.' Dutton Evans, 400 74, 89, 91 210, 220, 27 213 (1970); Bruton 391 123, 135—137, 88 1620, 476 (1968). indeed, 'an fundamental requirement kind country's goal.' Pointer Texas, 380 400, 405, 85 1065, 1068, 923 (1965). Of course, absolute may, appropriate cases, bow accommodate legitimate interests E.g., Mancusi Stubbs, 204, 2308, 293 denial significant diminution calls question ultimate "integrity fact-finding process" requires competing interest closely examined. Berger California, 393 314, 315, 540, 541, 21 508 (1969). 19 basis rests presumption—without regard particular case—that 'vouches credibility.' Clark Lansford, 191 125 (Miss.1966). historical origins uncertain, appears remnant primative English practice 'oath-takers' 'compurgators' stand behind party's position controversy. Their assertions strictly partisan and, quite unlike trials today, role little relation impartial ascertainment facts.7 Whatever validity enjoyed, apart whatever usefulness retains today civil process, bears relationship realities process.8 logical early common law require vouch credibility brought affirm veracity. Having selected purpose, reasonably expected firmly modern trials, defendants rarely able select witnesses: must find Moreover, applied rule's9 impact doubly harmful Not precluded cross-examining but, conceded argument,10 restricted scope direct rule's corollary calling bound say. was, effectively explain underlying rationale. Nor contended override accused's confrontation. argues incompatability between confrontation exists unless testifying 'adverse' accused. brief 'right applies 'against' accused.'11 Relying determination 'adverse,' Court's holding 'point Chambers,'12 contends involved. 22 argument to, 'against,' convincing. excluded theory participated To extent tended incriminate exculpate Chambers.13 And, retraction inculpated Extent exculpated seriously availability those give damaging never held depend initially reject notion such substance governed technicality narrow unrealistic definition word 'against.' plainly interfered charges. B need decide, error alone reversal viewed conjunction refusal permit witnesses. refused allow Carter. Each purportedly occasions crime, naming himself murderer. 24 respected virtually every based experience grounded untrustworthy presented triers fact. Out-of-court traditionally lack conventional indicia reliability: usually oath impress speaker solemnity statements; declarant's cross-examination; demeanor California Green, 399 149, 158, 90 1930, 1935, 26 489 (1970). number exceptions developed years tend reliability thereby compensate Among most prevalent applicable declarations interest14—an founded assumption unlikely fabricate made. recognizes pecuniary interest.15 declarations, like penal declarant. Brown 99 Miss. 719, 55 So. 961 (1911). This materialistic limitation declaration-against-interest States processes,16 it.17 Declarations federal courts authority Donnelly 228 243, 272—273, 449, 459, 57 820 (1913), required newly proposed Federal Rules Evidence.18 Exclusion, prevails, premised view lead frequent presentation perjured compulsion guilt. often motivated extraneous considerations proprietary interest. While rationale considerable scholarly criticism,19 doubting statements. Note, 43 Miss.L.J. serve valid state purpose involved originally offered provided assurance reliability. First, occurred. Second, case—McDonald's eyewitness ownership purchase sheer independent additional corroboration each. Third, parameters penal-interest rationale,20 here very self-incriminatory unquestionably Harris, 403 573, 584, 2075, 2082, 29 723 (1971); U.S., S.Ct., 219. stood benefit nothing disclosing aware possibility disclosure prosecution. telling involvement, Finally, truthfulness extrajudicial courtroom oath. cross-examined responses weighed significantly distinguishes precedent, supra, Donnelly-type situation, cases declarant unavailable trial.21 Few Webb 95, 351, 34 330 Washington 388 19, 1920, 1019 (1967); (1948). exercise right, accused, comply established procedure designed fairness guilt innocence. perhaps frequently hearsay, tailored likely trustworthy existed. rejected trustworthiness within circumstances, affecting. implicated, mechanistically defeat ends justice. 28 coupled traditional standards reaching judgment, we establish law. does signal respect accorded establishment implementation procedures. Rather, hold simply judgment remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. Reversed 32 WHITE, concurring. ordinarily expect appellate remain silent issue decision it. Normally, silence important indicate unnecessary decide properly reason. my Brother REHNQUIST points out, Street New York, 394 576, 582, 1354, 1360, 572 (1969), 'when . highest pass question, omission want proper courts, aggrieved can affirmatively contrary.' becomes burden demonstrate claim therefore necessarily rejected, silently, affirmance judgment. If fails so, entertain presses. invariable practice, ourselves canvass determine discussed supreme court, raised accordance surveyed Street, itself, help appellant; I think contest jurisdiction seemingly concedes below decided 36 There doubt enforces contemporaneous objection evidence; opinions Henry 253 263, 154 289 (1963); 266, 174 348 (1965); 198 (1967), sufficiently clear. Also, here, noted existence served 379 443, 564, obtains proponent claims exclusion: 37 'The rejection apparently error, sufficient introduction, relevancy admissibility. consistently followed definiteness sufficiency proof. .' Freeman 204 842, 847—848 (Miss. 1967) dissenting opinion). 38 stating contemporaneous-objection enforced 523, (1945), concerned appellant's mental condition '(t)he cannot exceptions, errors 'affecting parties affecting public policy,' act work injustice appeal.' Id., 528, 404. proceeded issue. Brooks 209 150, 155, 46 94, 97 (1950), defendant inadmissibility illegal seizure, self-incrimination, improper considered conviction, saying '(e)rrors appeal. (W)here ignored, exist, contemplation had.' reach when, affirming (1963), illegally obtained matter court. ruled, Henry's experienced adequate, mistakes. vacated bypass, reading extending discretion relief 'petitioner competent familiar procedure.' 449 n. 5, 568. initial remand, reasserted necessity object '(n) evertheless foregoing results justified intended substantive law, relaxed subordinated primary enforce justice.' 287, 351.* 40 King 230 209, 211 (Miss.1970), 1965 interpreted giving latitude treat peremptory instruction failure allegedly appellant timely 41 Wood 257 193, 200 (Miss.1972), complained wide-ranging part prejudicial inquiry, nevertheless '(W)e note Donald Ray Boyd asked However, Brooks, extreme violative receive consideration being defendant's extremely close. shred way opinion, warrants repeated objections Donal wherein though formal thereto.' 42 These preserve aspects hence anticipate situations enforced, despite Henry. Where leaves light decisions Georgia, 349 375, 75 814, 1161 (1955), There, acknowledging motions final favored 'exceptional' 'extraordinary' well-informed courts. denying Williams' adequate precluding review 'since principle discretionary deny deprive us.' 389, 822. 44 us, offers exclusion, grounds, terms now it, am inclined, dubitante, jurisdiction. 45 merits, join REHNQUIST, 47 Were merits difficulty subscribing constitutionalization intricacies raise seeks decide. 48 Title U.S.C. § 1257 provides pertinent follows: 49 'Final judgments decrees reviewed '(3) By writ certiorari, title, privilege immunity specially set Constitution, treaties statutes of, commission exercised under, States.' 51 deal imposed Congress jurisdictional limitation, Cardinale Louisiana, 437, 438, 1161, 1162, 398 always careful delicate nature conferred last resort: 52 'Upon re-examine arise mere inference, averments distinct positive place beyond bringing assert right.' Oxley Stave Co. Butler County, 166 648, 655, 709, 711, 1149 (1897). 53 cited 3, following language earlier York ex rel. Bryant Zimmerman, 278 63, 67, 61, 73 184 (1928), quoted: 54 'No form words phrases essential, invalidity therefor attention precision time.' 1362 (emphasis added). 'due time' generally procedure, indication 'that evade questions, duly up, unwarranted resort alleged practice.' Louisville & Nashville R. Woodford, 234 46, 51, 739, 741, 58 1202 (1914). More recently, 447, 567, (1965) that: 56 'These settle proposition litigant's procedural defaults prevent vindication insistence compliance serves interest.' Since dealing analysis particularly helpful deciding one. rulings, commented: apprising gives conduct using tainted fruits consideration, avoided.' 448, 59 exclude observed just surely contemporaneously Here, record shows even hinted previous delaying contention retired verdict reconsider expressed adequacy purposes differing treatment policy equally rendition verdict. 61 perfectly true, states 'objected rulings.' half test; litigant seeking otherwise advise clear constitutionally grounded. Bailey Anderson, 203, 66 66, condemnation award include date possession compensation circuit requested taking, explanation claim. say: 62 'But throughout attack constitutionality decree 206, 68. 63 Concluding Appeals Virginia there, passed 'appeal dismissed question.' 207, 64 Neither majority nor contain syllable refers expressly implication Constitution States. Those did, proffers holds dimension, nonconstitutional staples business regularly entirely too York: 65 'Moreover, 1360. If, extraordinarily lenient construction decisional 'in proceedings, making deemed timely, doubtful adequately consisted points: 67 '3rd, refusing declare permitting Defendant propound leading '4th, corroborating admitting killing 69 '6th, guaranteed Amendment Article Three, Sections Fourteen Twenty-Six Mississippi.' 70 perceptive glean separately fourth points, customary bolstered generalized assertion contained point. sixth point, 'the States,' directs trial; bald beginning end somehow unfair. Even 'title, immunity' 'specially claimed' aid 71 necessary issues turn undertake tell mandate behooves us doing adhere congressional limits Believing complied 1257(3), dismiss certiorari. indicted along implicating case-in-chief, directed favor. Upon change venue Amite east setting publicity attitude sheriff's staffs obtain there. address issue, us. rulings. claim, asserted, His verdict, listed concluded 'was Constitution.' conviction rehearing addressed almost manner consistent notions State—in argument—that reviewable 581—585, 1360—1362, 67—68, (1928). Unlike (1965), involve contention, 'fundamental Amendment' result accept cumulative effect frustrating exculpatory individually, claim—based rulings—could presentation. whether—if exists—its imposition 'legitimate 567. propriety Hardin's them, presence. account sustained, ordered disregard dealer purchases. records indicated year style instance, impermissible why 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence 896, pp. 658—660 (J. Chadbourn ed. 1970); McCormick, 38, 75—78 (2d 1972). condemned archaic, irrational, potentially destructive truth-gathering 7; E. Morgan, Basic Problems 70—71 (1962); 7, 898, p. 661. altogether Evidence, Rule 607, Courts Magistrates (approved 20, 1972, transmitted become effective July 1973, determines). (56 F.R.D. 183, 266.) Tr. Oral Arg. 35—37. Brief Respondent supplied). 272, (1913). Jefferson, Against Interest: An Exception Hearsay Rule, Harv.L.Rev. (1944). H. McElroy, (1955); Forrest County Coop. Assn. McCaffrey, 486, 493, 176 289—290 278, 673; 1476, 283—287 (1940). See, e.g., People Spriggs, Cal.2d 868, Cal.Rptr. 841, 389 P.2d 377 (1964); Lettrich, 413 Ill. 172, 108 N.E.2d 488 (1952); Brown, N.Y.2d 88, 308 N.Y.S.2d 825, Hines Commonwealth, 136 Va. 728, 117 S.E. 843 (1923). 804, 9. Committee Practice Procedure, 129—131 (rev. draft, Mar. 1971); 16, 284; Wright, Uniform Hearsay, U.Cin.L.Rev. 575 (1957); Annunziato, F.2d 373, 378 (CA2), cert. denied, 368 919, 82 240, 134 (1961) (Friendly, J.); Scolari 406 563, 564 (CA9), 981, 2140, 769 adopt committed brother charged. believed desire free rather ofguilt. fled, suffer Donald's 122, 127—129 presence deprives retention much force. claiming '(t)o travesty justice,' posited hypothetical: 'If changed, crime; C D hiding A's testify B's guilt; acquitted provide whereabouts really acquittal. barred protection double jeopardy. No perjury lie oath, truthful testimony.' Obviously, success justice-subverting ploy. remand decision, 348, mention 94 cases.

Category: 0