Document: 451 U.S. 454 101 S.Ct. 1866 68 L.Ed.2d 359 W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Petitioner,v.Ernest Benjamin SMITH. No. 79-1127. Argued Oct. 8, 1980. Decided May 18, 1981. Syllabus After respondent was indicted in for murder, the State announced its intention to seek death penalty. At an ensuing psychiatric examination, ordered by trial court determine respondent's competency stand and conducted jail where he being held, examining doctor determined that competent. Thereafter, tried a jury convicted. A separate sentencing proceeding then held before same as required law. such must resolve three critical issues whether or not sentence will be imposed. One these involves future dangerousness defendant, i. e., there is probability would commit criminal acts violence constitute continuing threat society. hearing, who had pretrial examination allowed testify over defense counsels' objection his name did appear on list witnesses planned use at either guilt penalty stages proceedings. His testimony based stated substance danger The resolved issue dangerousness, well other two issues, against respondent, thus under law mandatory. Court Criminal Appeals affirmed conviction sentence. unsuccessfully seeking writ habeas corpus state courts, petitioned relief Federal District Court. That vacated because it found constitutional error admitting doctor's phase. United States affirmed. Held : 1. admission phase violated Fifth Amendment privilege compelled self-incrimination, advised right remain silent any statement made could used him capital proceeding. Pp. 461-469. (a) There no basis distinguishing between phases so far protection concerned. State's attempt establish relying unwarned statements infringed just much have effort compel hearing. 462-463. (b) directly involved here evidence disclosures during examination. fact were context does automatically remove them from reach Amendment. 463-466. (c) considerations calling accused warned prior custodial interrogation apply with less force here. An neither initiates evaluation nor attempts introduce may respond psychiatrist if can When faced while custody court-ordered inquiry, "given freely voluntarily without compelling influences" and, such, only been apprised rights knowingly decided waive them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 478, 86 1602, 1630, 16 694. Since safeguards afforded cannot stand. 466-469. 2. Respondent's Sixth assistance counsel also introduction Such already attached when examined jail, interview proved "critical stage" aggregate proceedings respondent. Defense notified advance encompass their client's denied making significant decision submit what end psychiatrist's findings employed. 469-471. 5 Cir., 602 F.2d 694, Anita Ashton, Austin, Tex., petitioner. Joel Berger, New York City, Chief Justice BURGER, delivered opinion 1 We granted certiorari consider prosecution's murder rights. 445 926, 100 1311, 63 758 (1980). 2 * A. 3 On December 28, 1973, Ernest Smith arising participation armed robbery grocery store which clerk fatally shot, Smith, but accomplice. In accordance Art. 1257(b)(2) Tex.Penal Code Ann. (Vernon 1974) concerning punishment malice aforethought, judge 195th Judicial Dallas County, Texas, informally attorney arrange Dr. James P. Grigson Smith's trial.1 See n. 5, infra. 4 Grigson, interviewed approximately 90 minutes, concluded competent trial. letter judge, reported findings: "[I]t my aware difference wrong able aid defense." App. A-6. This filed court's papers case. convicted murder. cases require bifurcated proceedings—a phase.2 If defendant guilty, fix punishment. phase, affirmatively answers questions has burden proof beyond reasonable doubt, impose Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Arts. 37.071(c) (e) Supp. 1980). "whether society." 37.071(b)(2).3 words, assess defendant's dangerousness. 6 commencement rested "[s]ubject reopen." A-11. called lay witnesses: stepmother, aunt, man owned gun carried robbery. relatives testified good reputation character.4 owner pistol knowledge fire mechanical defect. witness. 7 file case submitted report form advising trial.5 termed "a severe sociopath," contained more specific reference Id., Before trial, obtained order requiring disclose both stage, known, stage. Subsequently, motion bar chief witness whose list. Grigson's list, objected 8 hearing outside presence jury, stated: permission attorneys examine him; discussed conclusions diagnosis attorney; prosecutor requested told him, five days began, probably needed within week. A-14—A-16. exclude ground witnesses. Although continuance requested, recessed one hour following acknowledgment "all right." A-17. 9 detailing professional qualifications way foundation, direct examination: "is very sociopath"; "he continue previous behavior"; sociopathic condition "only get worse"; (d) "regard another human being's property life, regardless be"; "[t]here treatment, medicine . all modifies changes this (f) going go ahead similar given opportunity do so"; (g) "has remorse sorrow done." A-17—A-26. information derived 90-minute "mental status examination" (i. trial), 10 answered requisite affirmative, thus, sentence, State, 540 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), we certiorari, 430 922, 97 1341, 51 601 (1977). B 11 Northern pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254. F.Supp. 647 holding failure advise notify testify. imposed violation Fourteenth due process freedom effective counsel, Eighth present complete mitigating circumstances. 664. 12 Circuit 694 (1979). "surprise" witness, consequences described "devastating," prevented effectively challenging testimony. 699. went hold that, Amendments, "Texas unless warned, silent; terminate wished; assisted deciding examination." 709. Because accorded rights, set aside. While "leav[ing] authorities arise about appropriate proceed legally execute whom sentenced death," indicated "the Smith" resentencing 703, 13, 709, 20. II 13 Of several addressed Appeals, turn first self-incrimination Our initial inquiry applicable circumstances (1) 14 argues entitled after conviction, guilt. view, "incrimination once adjudicated," therefore, relevance Brief Petitioner 33-34. disagree. 15 Amendment, states through commands "[n]o person shall himself." essence basic principle requirement proposes convict punish individual produce independent labor officers, simple, cruel expedient forcing own lips." Culombe Connecticut, 367 568, 581-582, 81 1860, 1867, 1037 (1961) (opinion announcing judgment) (emphasis added). Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 55, 84 1594, 1596-1597, 678 (1964); E. Griswold, Today (1955). availability [Fifth Amendment] upon type invoked, nature exposure invites." re Gault, 387 1, 49, 87 1428, 1455, 18 527 (1967). case, ultimate potential consequence psychiatrist. Just prevents " 'the deluded instrument conviction,' supra, 581, quoting Hawkins, Pleas Crown 595 (8th ed. 1824), protects "deluded instrument" execution. 17 discern distinguish concerned.6 Given gravity relieved obligation observe fundamental guarantees. Green Georgia, 442 95, 97, 99 2150, 2152, 60 738 (1979); Presnell 439 14, 16, 235, 236, 58 207 (1978); Gardner Florida, 349, 357-358, 1197, 1204-1205, 393 (1977) (plurality opinion). Any clearly contravene Amendment.7 Yet similarly infringes values. (2) 19 urges inapposite communications nontestimonial nature. seeks support our related some communicative act testimonial content said. See, e. g., Dionisio, 410 93 764, 35 67 (1973) (voice exemplar); Gilbert California, 388 263, 1951, 1178 (1967) (handwriting Wade, 218, 1926, 1149 (lineup); Schmerber 757, 1826, 908 (1966) (blood sample). 20 However, diagnosis, detailed testimony, simply observation Rather, drew largely account crime interview, placed particular emphasis considered lack remorse. A-27—A-29, A-33—A-34.8 prognosis made, remarks omitted, reciting details crime.9 privilege, 21 uttered n.6, supra. sua sponte, limited, neutral purpose determining results broader objective plainly adverse Consequently, characterized routine restricted ensuring understood charges capable assisting defense. Indeed, application confined serving function, arisen. 22 Nor analogous sanity occasioned plea guilty reason insanity time offense. asserts introduces supporting silence deprive means controverting interjected into Accordingly, Courts circumstances, Cohen, 530 43, 47-48 (CA5), cert. denied, 429 855, 149, 50 130 (1976); Karstetter Cardwell, 526 1144, 1145 (CA9 1975); Bohle, 54, 66-67 (CA7 1971); Weiser, 428 932, 936 (CA2 1969), 402 949, 91 1606, 29 119 (1971); Albright, 719, 724-725 (CA4 1968); Pope States, 372 710, 720-721 (CA8 1967) (en banc), remanded grounds, 392 651, 88 2145, 1317 (1968).10 23 Respondent, however, introduced evidence, might so. Instead, offered affirmative persuade return death. doubt. 37.071(b) To meet burden, statements, unwittingly awareness efforts obtain distinct correctly implicated. 24 (3) 25 467, 1624, (1966), acknowledged available serves protect persons settings action curtailed incriminate themselves." prosecution exculpatory inculpatory, stemming demonstrates procedural secure self-incrimination." 444, S.Ct., 1612. Thus, absent fully procedures, receive certain warnings official interrogation, including "right silent" "anything said court." 467-469, 1624-1625. admonitions combat saw "inherently pressures" work provide forgoing it, prerequisite "an intelligent exercise." Ibid. 26 Respondent County Jail conducted. questioned designated conduct rather than police officer, government informant, prosecuting attorney, immaterial. reporting competence crucial role changed became essentially like agent recounting postarrest setting. During evaluation, assuredly "faced adversary system" "not [a] perso[n] acting solely interest." 469, 1625. indication compulsory gather necessary decide whether, convicted, should He informed accordingly, answer put him. 27 "as broad mischief guard," Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 562, 195, 198, L.Ed. 1110 (1892), fulfilled guaranteed "to chooses speak unfettered exercise will, suffer silence."11 Malloy Hogan, 1489, 1493-1494, 653 (1964). agree phase.12 consent possible rely If, adequately questions, validly nevertheless proceeded applied purpose. proper examinations are frustrated, make way. "Volunteered barred Amendment," conclude 1630. These stand.13 30 appointed represent submitting interview. F.2d, 708-709. agree. 31 provides "[i]n prosecutions, enjoy "vital" need lawyer's advice recognized nearly years ago Powell Alabama, 287 45, 57, 71, 53 60, 65, 77 158 (1932). then, help lawyer "at judicial initiated formal charge, preliminary indictment, information, arraignment." Kirby Illinois, 406 682, 688-689, 92 1877, 1882, 32 411 (1972) opinion); Moore 434 220, 226-229, 98 458, 463-465, 54 424 And U.S., 226-227, 1932 explained: "It central [the addition counsel's alone stage prosecution, informal, out, absence derogate accused's fair trial." (Footnote omitted.) 33 Henry, 447 264, 2183, 65 115 (1980); Massiah 377 201, 1199, 246 White Maryland, 373 59, 83 1050, 193 (1963); Hamilton 368 82 157, 114 (1961). 34 Here, Jail,14 Coleman 399 7-10, 1999, 2002-2004, (1970) 60. dangerousness,15 "[a] layman precise scope, nuances, boundaries privilege," assertion "often depends legal someone trained skilled subject matter." Maness Meyers, 419 449, 466, 95 584, 595, 42 574 (1975). As observed, regarding proposed "literally life matter" "difficult even attorney" requires available, biases predilections, [and] alternative strategies hearing." 708. It follows logically precedents forced important guiding hand counsel." 69, 64. 36 Therefore, considerations, improperly counsel.16 C 37 Amendments prevent proving statute. request hope escaping addition, different situation arises intends 10, 38 Moreover, procedure, jury's resolution sense province experts. community view clinical predictions violent "fundamentally low reliability" psychiatrists possess special forecasts. Report America Psychiatric Association Task Force Clinical Aspects Violent Individual 23-30, (1974); Stone Mental Health Law: System Transition 27-36 (1975); American Amicus Curiae 11-17. 39 Jurek 262, 96 2950, 49 929 (1976), statute unconstitutional face. question joint judgment emphasized free whatever factors show, range severity past conduct, age, surrounding sentenced. 272-273, 2956-2957. course, propensity acts. 40 responding argument foretelling behavior impossible, 41 "[P]rediction essential element many decisions rendered throughout justice system. admit bail, instance, often judge's prediction conduct. authority predict person's probable engages impose. For those prison, parole authorities. task perform answering statutory basically performed countless times each day system justice." (Footnotes 275-276, 2957-2958 (footnotes omitted). disapproving bearing guided recognition mandated resort medical III 43 abridged concluded, vacated.17 underlying challenged remains undisturbed, further inconsistent opinion. 44 Affirmed. 45 BRENNAN. 46 I join Court's adhere position unconstitutional. 47 MARSHALL, concurring part. 48 Part II-C consistent unusual forbidden Amendments. therefore am unable suggestion ever constitutionally STEWART, POWELL joins, judgment. behest State. took place notice counsel. 246, Brewer Williams, 387, 1232, 424, impermissible affirm us reaching 52 REHNQUIST, concur because, (1964), notes, ante, Counsel activities involving client prepare accordingly. say regard careful delimiting issue, 470, 14. enough subscribe convinced implicated stood Hollis 571 685, 690-691 1978), analyzed issue: "The [defendant] subjects presenting disclosure prosecutable crimes, belief [defendant's] responses gave cast light manner was, 'compelled self-incrimination' though punishment." 55 Even never invoked confronted questions. self-executing. "Although Miranda's creates limited exception rule claimed, inherently coercive interrogations designed." Roberts 552, 560, 1358, 1364, 622 requirements certainly designed mind. Miranda. indicted, No claim raised "involuntary" normal word. Unlike officers Miranda, questioning ascertain innocence. Particularly since extend cover later "In sought penalty, mental done benefit intend participant receives doubt." A-117. 46.02 1979). appropriateness Smith. Article 37.071(a) Crim.Proc.Ann. 1980) provides: "Upon finding offense, imprisonment. soon practicable. proceeding, presented matter deems relevant subsection construed authorize secured Constitution Texas. permitted death." caused deceased committed deliberately expectation result" "if killing unreasonable response provocation, any, deceased." 37.071(b)(1) appears record possession marihuana. A-64. discovered selection began March 11, 1974. explained "appointed oral communication," appointment prepared," records reflect entry of] written order." A-118. "As best recall, John Simmons, mailed me." assert discovery served A-113, A-116. 25, 1974, issuance subpoena Sheriff's "visitation Smith." A-8. admitted proceeding." 46.023(g) 1979) 4244; Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 12.2(c); Alvarez, 519 1036, 1042-1044 (CA3 Note, Requiring Defendant Submit Government Examination: Invasion Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Harv.L.Rev. 648, 649, cited nn. 8-9 (1969). conceded argument. Tr. Oral Arg. 47, 49. doubted applicability founded mannerisms, facial expressions, attention span, speech patterns, 704 (CA5 1979), sheds enable suggests, "absent willingness cooperate verbal communications, meaningless." original). cross-examination, "discussion" A-32, replied "[w]hat most thing you think [respondent] sociopath" follows: "He me named Moon looked gun, pointed toward Mr. Moon's head, pulled trigger, clicked—misfired, hollered Howie, apparently partner 'Watch Howie. He's got gun.' Or something sort. point me—now, don't know shot man, Howie walked around shot—didn't check see alive dead. Didn't call ambulance, up underneath counter money. very—sort cold-blooded disregard life. telling story saying, know, 'Man, anything back alive. wish hadn't stepped body.' 'I checked right' indicate concern, guilt, But didn't this." A-27—A-28. theory, carefully left open possibility wishes behalf [on dangerousness] precluded using [also] willing nominated state." 705. recognizing coerce include prosecutorial comment refusal examined, noted remark allowing draw "might clash [this Court's] insistence procedures unusually reliable." 707. Griffin 380 609, 85 1229, 106 (1965). reasons reject waived failing timely, 708, 19. note waiver petition certiorari. Rule 40(1)(d)(2) (1970). concerns necessarily types interviews relied inform determination. instituted, concerned safeguard 471-473, 1626-1627, (1966). Edwards 477, 1880, 378. consult cf. 15, assert, find, actually fact, contribute little seriously disrupt Cf. Thornton Corcoran, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 242, 248, 407 695, 705, 711 (1969) part dissenting part). clear waiving right. Waivers "must voluntary, knowing relinquishment abandonment known 'upon facts [each] .' 482, 1883-1884, Johnson Zerbst, 304 464, 1019, 1023, 1461 (1938). shown, alleged, disposition claims, give appearance deprived process.

Category: 0