Document: 454 U.S. 339 102 S.Ct. 460 70 L.Ed.2d 530 David R. HARRIS, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facilityv.Jose RIVERA No. 81-17. Dec. 14, 1981. PER CURIAM. 1 The questions presented by the certiorari petition concern constitutionality of inconsistent verdicts in a nonjury criminal trial. Certiorari is granted and judgment United States Court Appeals for Second Circuit reversed. 2 During morning March 26, 1973, respondent, Jose Rivera, his wife Cynthia Humdy, their friend, Earl Robinson, entered apartment Milagros Torres. After neighbor heard woman scream, he called police. police arrested Humdy on fire escape with $540 cash her coat pocket, when door was opened, they found place shambles respondent Robinson. 3 Each three intruders indicted five separate charges arising out this one episode.1 They were tried jointly justice Supreme New York sitting without jury. principal government witness victim Torres; Robinson only defense witness. If judge had credited all testimony Torres, presumably would have defendants guilty counts; acquittals been rendered if Robinson's testimony. However, not counts, acquitted convicted robbery second degree, grand larceny third burglary degree.2 Respondent's convictions affirmed appeal. People v. 57 A.D.2d 738, 393 N.Y.S.2d 630, leave to appeal denied, 42 N.Y.2d 894, 397 1035, 366 N.E.2d 887 (1977). 4 In 1978, District Southern denied respondent's application federal writ habeas corpus. reviewing trial record, rejected several challenges conviction which described as "variations claim insufficiency evidence."3 5 On from that judgment, concluded there an apparent inconsistency state judge's general acquitting convicting respondent. 643 F.2d 86. held committed constitutional error because explained record.4 court therefore order requiring either grant new or demonstrate appropriate findings rational basis facially verdicts.5 Under Appeals' holding, adequacy explanation thereafter be subject review courts, which, persuaded irrationally inconsistent, then decide whether constitutionally permissible.6 recognized its holding unprecedented.7 6 This case does raise any question concerning significance appellate may attach verdict direct proceeding constituted collateral attack final already such authorized issue "a corpus behalf person custody pursuant State ground violation Constitution laws treaties States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).8 7 view limited scope proceeding, it plain erred case. assumption correctly determined are we hold no requirement explain reasons defendant trial; even acquittal rests improper ground, create defect supported sufficient evidence product fair 8 * work judges facilitated make fact controversial rulings.9 Although occasions decision required demands due process,10 exception rather than rule.11 Federal supervisory power over judges; require observance special procedures except necessary assure compliance dictates Constitution. Accordingly, directed provide first determining inexplicably unconstitutional.12 II 9 Inconsistency reason setting aside. We so respect between against defendant, Dunn States, 284 390, 52 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932),13 also treat codefendants joint inconsistently, Dotterweich, 320 277, 279, 64 134, 135, 88 48 (1943).14 Those cases, however, involved jury trials; recognized, both those opinions stressed unreviewable return impermissible reasons.15 It argued different rule should applied cases factfinder. 10 Dotterweich preclude intolerable itself, nevertheless might constitute arbitrariness undermine confidence quality conclusion. case, suggested possibility relied considerations neither nor testified, knowledge adverse information contained record.16 Undeniably, these possibilities exist, but existed separately. bench trials, routinely hear inadmissible presumed ignore making decisions. equally routine them instruct juries inference drawn defendant's failure testify; surely must presume follow own instructions acting factfinders. gives rise irregularity finding guilt sufficiently strong overcome well-established presumption adhered basic rules procedure.17 11 Other explanations far more likely. Most likelihood actual observation everything transpired courtroom created some doubt about able articulate convincing manner.18 convinced beyond reasonable guilty, most unfortunate plausibility lingering cause him convict try doubt. 12 possible made law erroneously assumed, example, share proceeds larceny. There reason—and requirement—that pertaining redound benefit respondent.19 13 Even unlikely lenity free exercise at time sentencing generally forbidden ruling innocence, violation. aware nothing prevent empowering render whenever sentence imposed unrelated innocence. prohibit being excessively lenient. 14 has standing fairly conducted. judge, Court, agreed record contains adequate guilt.20 These courts proceedings leading up conducted fairly. Apart discloses error. assuming logically who after trial, complain acquitted.21 15 Reversed. Justice MARSHALL, dissenting. 16 I write separately underscore my disapproval what perceive growing inexplicable readiness part "dispose of" summarily. Perhaps trend often lamented our "increasing caseload." Whatever trend, believe can detract Court's decisions deserving consuming energy better spent elsewhere. 17 Moreover, deciding summarily, oral argument full briefing, access to, of, runs great risk rendering erroneous ill-advised confuse lower courts: immune mistakes, particularly under kinds circumstances. As Jackson aptly put it, although somewhat context: "We infallible, infallible final." Brown Allen, 344 443, 540, 73 397, 427, 97 469 (1953) (concurring result). reserve imprimatur give plenary review, briefing argument. 18 say summary disposition never appropriate. view, utilize practice caution true recent past. possession dangerous weapon, degree. count dismissed stage lesser included within "The next set forth sufficiency petitioner's Such allegation level infringement, ex rel. Nersesian Smith, 418 F.Supp. 27 (S.D.N.Y.1976) unless 'there proof whatever crime charged.' Terry Henderson, 426 1125, 1131 (2d Cir. 1972). reviewed transcript. Any devoid Petitioner's Points IV, VI, VII, VIII liberally read, variations evidence." App. Pet. Cert. A-12. predated Virginia, 443 307, 99 2781, 61 560 (1979). held, merit test Jackson. 86, 90, n. (CA2 1981). "when non-jury Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment permit stand demonstrates validly basis." Id., 87. "For foregoing reverse remand directions enter conditionally vacating awarding ninety days valid." 97. "If makes purporting validity conviction, petitioner renew challenge conviction. At point, will considered light co-defendant court's findings, denies liberty process law." 97-98 (footnote omitted). See id., 94. Maybury, 274 899 (1960), divided panel reversed two-count indictment majority first. Judge Friendly expressed could retried 904-906; Lumbard dismissed, 906-907 (dissenting part). Learned Hand "[r]egardless doctrine [Dunn (1932)] applies judge." 908 concurring "in prohibiting verdicts, Maybury purport rest provision well decided solely administration Circuit." F.2d, "Maybury barring trials" "well established 91. note, none cited proposition actually overturned inconsistency. Indeed, expressly noted resulting rested justify reversal Wilson, 342 43, 45 1965). events, noted: "To knowledge, applicant asked us overturn rule." Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., 650 223 (1981), Ninth followed Circuit's reasoning Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 146, 94 396, 400, 38 368 (1973), particular reference challenged instruction, articulated difference appeals' district jurisdiction authority relief 2254: "Within unitary jurisdictional framework will, course, conform mandates, likewise deemed desirable viewpoint sound judicial nowise commanded statute Thus substantial unanimity among appeals instruction ought given respective jurisdictions not, more, declaring giving invalid Amendment. Before used, merely undesirable, erroneous, 'universally condemned,' violated right guaranteed Amendment." noteworthy Courts agreement courts. See, e. g., West, 549 545 (CA8), cert. 430 956, 1601, 51 806 Arizona Washington, 434 497, 517, 98 824, 835-836, 54 717 (1978) ("Review is, supporting decision. No matter how procedural assistance be, mandated this"). Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 489, 92 2593, 2604, 33 484 (1972); Wolff McDonnell, 539, 564-565, 2963, 2978-2979, 41 295 (1974). other safeguards minimized unfairness, diminished justification rulings. Connecticut Board Pardons Dumschat, 452 458, 472, 101 2460, 2468, 69 158 (1981) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Our inherent substantial, see discussion infra, 345-348, undercuts initial premise analysis prisoner entitled verdicts. Accord, Hamling 87, 101, 2887, 2899, 590 Cf. Hartzell 322 680, 682, 3, 1233, 1234, 1534 (1944) (the aside conspiracy alleged co-conspirators "makes impossible sustain upon . count"); cf. Standefer 447 10, 100 1999, 689 (1980) (a accused aiding abetting commission offense named previous trial). "Equally baseless that, having failed find corporation guilty. Whether jury's result carelessness compromise belief responsible individual suffer penalty instead increasing, were, cost running business corporation, immaterial. Juries indulge precisely motives vagaries. 390 [52 356]." Holmes' opinion Dunn, last characteristically brief point. He quoted following passage Steckler 59, 60 1925): " 'The said shows did speak real conclusions, show guilt. interpret exercise, disposed through lenity.' U.S., 393, S.Ct., 190. citing Horning Columbia, 254 53, 65 185 (1920), added: "That compromise, mistake jury, possible. But cannot upset speculation inquiry into matters." 393-394, 190-191. 94-95. 518, 836 (WHITE, dissenting): "[In Townsend Sain, 372 293, 83 745, 770 (1963), the] 'the coequal responsibilities think may, ordinary articulation, properly assume trier correct standards facts, absence suspect incorrect standard applied.' 314-315, 757-58. A silent concluding error; mere enough warrant relief." fact, stated 90. 19 7, supra. 20 course wholly rationally reached. Just announced today subjective determination scrutiny used factfinder—if known." 319-320, 13, 2789, 13. 21 94, (rejecting equal protection allegedly verdicts). North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 722-723, 89 2072, 2079, 23 656 (1969). conclusion buttressed practical problems clearly implicated. Henderson Kibbe, 431 145, 154, 1730, 1736, 203 (1977), relevant available: interest preserving finality judgments, [citations omitted], orderly procedure, before justified. For many years impossible, matter, conduct retrial." court, still bench, remember much less codefendant another. Confronted counsel's assertion same codefendants, codefendant; satisfy hardly placate petitioner.

Category: 0