Document: 347 U.S. 62 74 S.Ct. 354 98 L.Ed. 503 WALDERv.UNITED STATES. No. 121. Argued Nov. 30, 1953. Decided Feb. 1, 1954. Mr. Paul A. Porter, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert S. Erdahl, respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In May 1950, petitioner was indicted in United States District Court Western Missouri purchasing and possessing one grain heroin. Claiming that heroin capsule had been obtained through an unlawful search seizure, moved to suppress it. The motion granted, shortly thereafter, on Government's motion, case against dismissed. 2 January 1952, again indicted, this time four other illicit transactions narcotics. consisted principally testimony two drug addicts who claimed have procured stuff from under direction federal agents. only witness defense defendant himself, here. He denied any narcotics dealings with Government informers attributed him personal hostility. 3 Early his direct examination testified as follows: 4 'Q. Now, first, Walder, before we go further your testimony, I want you (sic) tell jury whether, not referring these case, but whether ever sold anyone. never anyone my life. 5 Have possession, than what may given by a physician ailment? 6 will ask more thing. handed or gift manner without receipt money compensation? not. 7 even acted as, say, conduit purpose handling knew be narcotic person another? No, Sir.' On cross-examination, response question counsel making reference reiterated assertion he purchased, possessed Over defendant's objection, then questioned about unlawfully seized home presence back February 1950. stoutly were taken at time.1 put stand officers participated seizure also chemist analyzed there seized. trial judge admitted evidence, carefully charged it used determine committed crimes here charged, solely impeaching credibility. convicted Appeals Eighth Circuit affirmed, dissenting. 201 F.2d 715. which divided court, sole issue here, is opened door, attacking credibility, evidence connection earlier proceeding. Because presents novel aspect scope doctrine Weeks v. States, 232 383, 34 341, 58 652, granted certiorari. 345 992, 73 1144. 8 cannot violate Fourth Amendment2—in way can do anything, namely its agents—and use fruits such conduct secure conviction. supra. Nor make indirect Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 40 182, 64 319, support conviction leads cf. Nardone 308 338, 60 266, 84 307. All methods are outlawed, convictions means them invalidated, because they encourage kind society obnoxious free men. 9 It thing say affirmative obtained. quite another turn illegal method possession own advantage, provide himself shield contradiction untruths. Such extension would perversion Amendment. 10 Take present situation. Of accord, went beyond mere denial complicity made sweeping claim dealt course, Constitution guarantees fullest opportunity meet accusation him. must deny all elements thereby giving leave introduce rebuttal illegally secured it, therefore available chief. Beyond that, however, hardly justification letting affirmatively resort perjurious reliance disability challenge credibility.3 11 situation involved sharply contrasted presented Agnello 269 20, 46 4, 70 145. There Government, after having failed efforts tainted chief, tried smuggle cross-examinaton asking accused broad 'Did see before?'4 After eliciting expected denial, sought located order discredit defendant. holding could no work cross-examination foreshadowed, perhaps unwittingly, result reach today: 12 'And contention admissible merit. examination, asked did testify concerning cocaine. answer permitted over said seen nothing waive constitutional protection justify respect search. * *' page 35, 7. 13 judgment affirmed. 14 Affirmed. 15 BLACK DOUGLAS dissent. This squarely contradicted affidavit filed proceeding, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 41(e), 18 U.S.C.A. 'The right people their persons, houses, papers, effects, unreasonable searches seizures, shall violated *.' Cf. Michelson 335 469, 479, 69 213, 220, 93 168: price pay attempting prove good name throw open entire subject law has kept closed benefit vulnerable where otherwise shields him.' underlying rationale disposes evidentiary raised petitioner, wit, 'whether actual guilt former indictment dismissed proved extrinsic introduced impeach prosecution subsequent offense.' Transcript Record, p. 476,

Category: 0