Document: 405 U.S. 473 92 S.Ct. 1014 31 L.Ed.2d 374 Otis LOPER, Petitioner,v.George J. BETO, Corrections Director, et al. No. 70-5388. Argued Jan. 13, 1972. Decided March 22, Syllabus For the purpose of impeaching petitioner's credibility, prosecutor in 1947 rape trial was permitted to interrogate him about his previous criminal record. Petitioner admitted four felony convictions during period 1931—1940. He found guilty by jury and sentenced a term 50 years. filed petition for habeas corpus Federal District Court alleging that were constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799, because he had been denied assistance counsel. The relief Appeals affirmed, stating 'fact there are possible infirmities evidence does not necessarily raise an issue constitutional proportions which would require reversal.' Held: judgment is vacated case remanded further proceedings. Pp. 480—485. 440 F.2d 934, 937, remanded. John T. Cabaniss, Houston, Tex., petitioner. Robert Darden, San Antonio, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART announced opinion DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL join. 1 petitioner, Loper, brought Texas court upon charge statutory rape. alleged victim, Loper's 8-year-old stepdaughter, only witness who identified as perpetrator crime. sole defense Loper himself, testified assaulted victim any way. on cross-examination In response this line questioning, damaging detail 1931—1940, three Mississippi one tennessee.1 At conclusion one-day charged years prison. 2 initiated present proceeding United States Southern 1969. alleged, among other things, used impeach credibility at counsel Tennessee courts convicted him.2 His sworn testimony hearing confirmed these allegations.3 addition, produced records corroborate testimony.4 relief, placing 'little or no credence' testimony, holding event 'the question rise stature subject collateral attack.'5 3 On appeal, Fifth Circuit affirmed Court. Although recognizing force argument effect such may have impaired minds own behalf,' appellate held use purposes impeachment goes nearly so serious conviction enhancement, add imprisonment sentence defendant. . presented raises evidentiary question. fact 937 (CA5).6 4 We limited our grant certiorari single question, worded follows certiorari: Does prior, void deprive defendant due process law where their might well influenced outcome case? 404 821, 151, 30 49. This recurring has received conflicting answers Courts Appeals.7 It also divided state courts.8 5 starting point considering is, course, 799. unanimously clear simple rule: absence waiver, if it obtained help lawyer.9 6 dealt with sequel Burgett Texas, 389 109, 88 258, 19 319. There indictment charging petitioner assault contained allegations convictions, proved, increased punishment recidivist statutes. read beginning trial. Records two offered course trial, appeared least violation Gideon. reversing judgment, said: 7 'To permit Wainwright be against person either support guilt enhance another offense erode principle case. Worse yet, since defect prior denial right counsel, accused suffers anew from deprivation right.' U.S., 115, S.Ct., 262. 8 Earlier Term we before us played part determination length defendant's prison sentence. Tucker, 443, 589, 592. ruled Ninth correct teaching required remand resentencing. Tucker involved aspect prohibits 'enhance punishment.' now involves 'to guilt.'10 innocence turned entirely whether believe girl Loper. And destroy eyes jury.11 10 Unless forsaken, inescapable deprives law.12 can put matter better than words First Circuit: 11 'We conclude rule uncounseled prove guilt' intended prohibit credibility,' obvious likely imply, prove, guilt. Even prohibition originally contemplated, fail discern distinction allow credibility. impairs reliability just much when direct proof guilt.' Gilday Scafati, 428 1027, 1029. 12 A dissenting today suggests decision presses 'sound doctrine retroactivity beyond outer limits its logic.' contrary, directly rationale supra, given retroactive application. said established very integrity fact-finding process' trials, after lawyer 'lacked reliability.' Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 639, 85 1731, 1743, 14 601 n. 20. 'suffered anew' unconstitutional deprivation, regardless decision. surely unreasonable, suggests, expect judge anticipated Gideon, unreasonable expected Gideon's foreseen later But necessary result applying retroactively invalidate rulings made trialjudges prevailing time judges them.13 If 'sound,' then cannot decided ill-starred discredited Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595. 13 set aside, proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. 15 Vacated 16 WHITE, concurring result. 17 corpus, reasoning even though using those granted certiorari; past cases stand, I agree Appeals' reasons affirming erroneous. however, mean must aside. remain issues, unresolved Appeals, challenged legally infirm: represented earlier convictions; not, did waive counsel? These matters best considered first instance Appeals. same true respect legal significance lack validity more connection, do understand decisions hold room finding harmless error; ultimately turn error prefer initial lower court. 18 Chief BURGER, whom POWELL joins, dissenting. 1942 Court, deciding 1595, Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment call setting aside robbery entered indigent whose request appointed overruled 1963 five Yet holds magnitude occurred presiding failed make, motion, ruling inconsistent both Constitution explicitly interpreted dissent. 20 (1) 21 Three witnesses called eight-year-old stepdaughter raped her August 9, 1947. physician gave corroborating child raped. himself having committed act, but day home alone four-month-old baby boy; was, far knew, truthful child. 22 Under cross-examination, burglary 1931, 1932, 1935, 1940, respectively. 1969 here review, introduced relating three. summarized follows: 23 (a) 1931 indicated pleaded being arraigned six-month imposed nine days later. attorney connection proceedings; could afforded private counsel; never informed want 24 (b) record all 1932 conviction. 25 (c) 1935 conviction, appears face suggest counsel: 'Came Attorney General person, tried (whose members,) heard proof, arguments Counsel Court(,) oath say .' (Emphasis added.) 26 (d) 1940 recited 'in proper person.' trial; 'believe' 27 we, unlike Court,1 treat absolutely everything hearing, basis leading convictions. With through met 'burden proving inability hire attorney.' Kitchens Smith, 401 847, 848, 91 1089, 1090, 28 519 (1971). basis, then, application bring into thus 1931—a plea guilty—can reasonably arguably 29 (2) When elects testify behalf, asks jury, effect, rather prosecution. presents worthy belief. doing, brings witness, thereby exposes designed Such rules evidence, relevant time, prejudicial they excluded despite relevance. Each State's governing reflect balance struck State weighing, category probative value jury's crime charged.2 plurality concludes violated fully valid Brady—the 1947—was rendered infirm make clear, lacking violate so. grounded solely consideration undue prejudice, underlying today's elusive indeed. suggestion follow instructions restricted Nor plausible contention difficulty following dealing counseled one. 32 be, based view fundamentally unfair allowed defendant, view, jurors told misled regard fact; i.e., merely previously felony, believing duly when, convicted. justifies ruling, justified anticipating Court's overruling Brady 1963. Not wisest member hazarded prediction 33 opinion, analyze terms. concludes, rigidly mechanistic approach, calls new compelled strike down pre-Gideon collaterally used. This, gives consequence wholly unrealistic dimensions unrelated basic fairness process; effort 'unring bell' series dating back 41 ago. Parenthetically, note nowhere denies burglaries. 34 time. cannot, therefore, contemporaneous fact. said, without distorting semblance rationality common sense, acted 'fundamental fairness.' 'fundamentally fair' conducted, how undergone metamorphosis because—16 purpose—the changed? 35 retroactive, meant applies renders future purposes, unlawful continuation prisoner's incarceration unless had. render already past. giving enlarged plows ground, disregarding implications will broadening scope retroactivity. many senselessly vulnerable attack holding. 36 assess judicial making distinctions between seems requiring followed Had indeed prosecution fundamental refusing 'erod(ing) principle' 262, 319 (1967). are, situation here. refuse Indeed, implicitly specifically then-controlling Brady. 37 states '(i)f ..' precise, 'decided under' different faced cases. Both substantive instant deals related, altogether different, implied long failure recognize simple, albeit crucial, unfortunately prevents drawing rational preserve values producing extravagant reached today. 38 introduction, good faith objection, lawfully admissible truth presently challenge, hardly process. arise occurrence events give grounds challenging evidence. Cf. Townsend Sain, 293, 317, 745, 759, 770 (1963): '(T)he existence newly discovered prisoner ground federal corpus.' 1947, viewed light then-recent Being usable purposes. Bearing mind, nothing subsequently invalidity conduct subsequent discovery tending, example, discredit questioned State. properly leads trials sustain confinement persons logic enunciated counsels should what context, analogized Neither nor specific provision requires retroactive; orderly administration justice dictates contrary. 39 relies, justify post-Gideon introduce known introduction existing law. case, worst event—the that, pre-dated postdated affected judge. 40 implicit violence sense society's interest finality judgments. Only soothsayers adhere it. rule, sought introduced, becomes inadmissible if, infirm. respect, submit power impose unmanageable abstractly that. repugnant concept federalism notions reasonableness orderliness embodied Clause. distressing example pressing sound logic. does, indeed, reads it, overrule delay. As Harlan, Black White, observed, sit errors appeals 120, 264. 42 BLACKMUN, 43 (1967), seemingly, 592 (1972), proscribe allegedly ago takes stand defense. claimed natural succeeding step 799 (1963), aspects, particularly stressed troublesome me: 44 1. resolution original came choice, uncommon always provides element unsureness. woman's—or child's—word man's. Hanging penalty great severity. 50-year illustrative tempting target reviewing 45 2. Obviously, familiar 'for opinion' really meaningless Certainly carry usual meaning implications. incident took place eight old, 33. suspect vivid faded, mercifully, victim's memory. Retrial, impossible, highly unlikely. therefore actually translates enforced acquittal release 46 3. plurality's reliance hearings certified complete. Perhaps implication presented. recital person' customary recital, drawn, fact, present. footnote reveals, Thus, me, effectively unchallenged Surely, them, sustained burden proof. 47 4. mild suspicion practical exactly priors accepted That use, improper destroys irretrievably. 48 5. troubles cease 936, parole arrested car theft Mississippi. While revocation order awaiting execution, escaped fugitive year. 49 6. see need recede circumstances me impression acceptable run indiscriminately applied. Here again, impractical application, painted itself corner. some realism needed. See 452, 594 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). advised oral once working Texas.* assuming behaves or, formally, parole, decision, however go, freedom. balance, feel THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissent, argument, certainly stronger position practicalities. 51 JUSTICE, join, 52 undertakes apply reach uncounseled, waived accords him. hearing. judge, veteran years' experience district assertions error: 53 'At outset stated false statements oath, facts roundly thoroughly shown unimpeachable little credence placed testimony. (App. 61.) 54 factual inconsistencies resolved general observation concerning credibility: 55 'As outset, innumerable applications relief. Pound pound, probably most prolific writer writs come applications, verified open repeatedly completely false.' 65.) 56 surprising, blush, find reaching decides. procedural posture attention receives 57 stepdaughter. and, appropriate law, cross-examined burglary, 1940. offense, serve penitentiary. become final, parole. 58 proceeding, 25-year-old still serves, challenge vary age copies reciting appearances person'; copy 'and indictment, silent regarding presence No documentary whatever fourth interrogated 59 addition furnished false. (Supra, 498.) 60 Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 468—469, 1019, 1025, 82 1461 (1938), landmark 61 'It remembered, lightly attack, corpus. attacked, carries presumption regularity. (Footnote omitted.) Where acquiesces resulting seeks extraordinary remedy rests establish competently intelligently meet convinces preponderance neither duty writ.' substantial interests 'a visible end litigable .,'1 unique considerations traditional deprivation. normal era States. 63 sufficiently difficult task sitting review custodian local procedure, available augment pertaining attack. Whatever take locale knowledge testify. 64 deal second-level judgments Tennessee. parties sustaining sentences served. familiarity vagaries procedure surviving actual proceedings, ago, distant location voluntary appearance unlikely, compulsion impossible. 65 Carnley Cochran, 369 506, 804, 70 (1962), Supreme Florida, issue, waiver counsel.2 One quarrel principle, applied supreme refusal vacate recent courts, prescribed actions last (1971), asserted Sixth rights provide 1944 indigent. 'Of 1944, 66 entitled each However, assignment every mandatory; may, right, determine wish avail transcript roll indicates conclusive violated. satisfaction manner chosen him, Wainwright. overall assessment declined self-serving assertions. uniform cases, elsewhere, finder disbelieve interested witness. NLRB Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 337 656, 659, 69 1283, 1285, 90 1602 (1949). memorandum Judge, precisely chose 67 nature advance guarantee reading briefs satisfied us. Our avoid adjudication narrower clearly authority Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 345—348, 466, 482—483, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring), Rescue Army Municipal City Los Angeles, 331 549, 1409, 1666 (1947). 68 Concluding predicate absent, dismiss writ improvidently granted. Since addresses merits likewise. affirm satisfactorily denying 'Q. During ten times you indicted felony? 'A. About twice How May 7th, weren't 'MR. LETTS: Your honor, object to, arrested, 'THE COURT: Well, let finish Letts. All 7, for? Burglary. that? Carthage, What get Five January 15th, then? object, your over indicted, Brushy Mountain Parish, Petros, Tennessee? Four October 27th, ask instruct consider reaches way knows prejudice inflame Objection over-ruled. November 29th, 1934? Chattanooga, Parchman, Mississippi, Six months, think. offenses can't remember them straight, you? remark, honor. sustained. 1931? Yes. Have gone name Loper? always. names by? Milton Cummings. wasn't it? Yes sir. 1932? conviction? Two Cummings? DUGGAN: That's all, questions.' dismissed dismissal deprived appeal 383 400 (CA5). remand, noting numerous petitions years, represent directed points 'conceivably raised postconviction litigation advanced six claims, t resolving contentions. claim petitions. Were Scott County, Mississippi? Yes, old time? don't remember, around something age. I'm sure. proceeding? No, sir, didn't attorney. afford not? Did know inform attorney? ' Q. convicted, Leake occurred? 26, Let plead guilty? guilty. prison? Now, stage proceedings? Could one? then. couldn't have, no, Was held? Who conducted trial? anybody. people. anything to. yes, Why attempt yourself? attorney, nobody me. it.' Hamilton Tennessee, inn simply codefendants 'entered pleas guilty, indictment.' unreported. post, 502, implies courts. 'there statement above, decline accept credible.' incorrect, 4, supra. Nowhere decisions, obligation lawyers defendants unrealistic, uncontradicted For, 'waived.' Moreover, stated: 'The mentioned number yet disclose ever Except fails furnish information surrounding former So outstanding, unchallenged, felonies (I)f possessed else done Surely review.' F.2d, 937. observations, perhaps quoted rest involved, below invalid. 114—115, 261—262, 319; Losieau Sigler, 406 795, 803 (CA8); Williams Coiner, 392 210, 212—213 (CA4). relies 519. 'proved indigency (1944) conviction,' though, 'introduced testimony.' Id., 849, 1090. Compare ex rel. Walker Follette, 443 167 (CA2 1971), 1027 (CA1 1970); States, 431 1292 (CA9 Howard Craven, 446 586 1971). Simmons State, 456 S.W.2d (Ct.Cr.App.Tex.1970), benefit nevertheless impeachment. Most reported Spaulding 481 P.2d (Alaska 1971); re Dabney, 71 Cal.2d 1, 76 Cal.Rptr. 636, 452 924 (1969); Md.App. 166, 263 A.2d 232 (1970); White 423, 274 671 (1971); Subilosky Commonwealth, 265 N.E.2d (Mass.1970) (semble). retroactive. Pickelsimer 375 2, 84 80, 41; authorized absolute unreviewable discretion death electric chair. Pen.Code, Art. 1189 (1948). bringing served punishment. rebutting stand. 167, Harris New York, 222, 643, 1; Walder 347 62, 74 354, 98 503. used, rather, convict blackening character jury. often noted. See, e.g., C. McCormick, Evidence § 43, p. 93 (1954): sharpest impact practice particular type namely, forced admit 'record' crimes similar danger instructions, heed kind man commit charge, ought away too concern guilt, legitimate bearing credibility.' error, us, unrepresented Moore, 334 (CA,1); 1292; 1027. dictate Yet, disposition Bates Nelson, 393 16, 89 50, 21, 1957 Every none suggested 795 (CA8 1969); 421 139 Oswald Crouse, 420 373 (CA10 1969). observing testify, 'petitioner Michelson 335 469, 213, 168 (1948), somewhat reputation community. puts calling witnesses, government cross-examine aware arrests consequently reputation. reasoned possibility '(t)o otherwise honest law-abiding 484, 222 (emphasis added). * Tr. Oral Arg. 27, 31—32. Mackey 667, 690, 1160, 1179, (1971) (separate J.). September 19, 1958. June 1960, Florida provisional discharged 23, 1960. 123 So.2d 249, 250 (1960).

Category: 0