Document: 409 U.S. 100 93 S.Ct. 354 34 L.Ed.2d 335 Marilyn COOLv.UNITED STATES. No. 72-72. Dec. 4, 1972. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. 2 In this case, the court below held in effect that criminal trial, jury may be instructed to ignore defense testimony unless it believes beyond reasonable doubt true. That holding fundamentally inconsistent with our prior decisions re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368 (1970), and Washington v. Texas, 388 14, 87 1920, 18 1019 (1967), must therefore reversed. 3 After petitioner was found guilty possessing concealing, intent defraud, counterfeit obligations United States. evidence showed on June 2, 1970, petitioner, her hubsand, one Robert E. Voyles were traveling together by car between St. Louis, Missouri, Brazil, Indiana. Upon reaching left husband passed two bills at local store. He then arrested shortly after he entered which waiting. 4 his arrest, placed police taken station house. Petitioner told follow their own car. A Mr. Baumunk testified saw throw paper sack out window as following bag subsequently contain bills. Police also three crumpled up under right seat petitioner's 5 Although defense, she relied primarily Voyles. freely admitted guilt,1 but steadfastly insisted neither nor had anything do crime. merely agreed give him ride knew nothing about carried him. When stopped allegedly removed some from satchel kept trunk, concealed rest front bumper headlight. argued fall ground drove station. stated rejoined approaching threw remaining person onto floor, again without knowledge petitioner. thus asserts not knowing possession floor. 6 With case posture, Government's position clearly depended upon its ability discredit Voyles, since completely exculpatory. Over strenuous objection,2 trial judge gave lengthy 'accomplice instruction' used evaluating Voyles' testimony. first defining word 'accomplice' warning an accomplice's 'open suspicion,' made statement: 'However, I charge you accomplice competent pass credibility thereof. If carries conviction are convinced true doubt, should same would witness any respect implicated alleged crime only justified, your duty, because comes tainted source.' (Emphasis added.) 7 clear implication instruction disregard 'convinced doubt.'3 Such places improper burden allows convict despite failure find guilt doubt.4 8 Accomplice instructions have long been use repeatedly approved. See, e.g., Holmgren States, 217 509, 523—524, 30 588, 591—592, 54 L.Ed. 861 (1910). most instances, they represent no more than commonsense recognition special interest testifying, casting veracity. Crawford 212 183, 204, 29 260, 268, 53 465 (1909). But recorded cases, has when turned State's against defendant. See generally McMillen 386 F.2d (CA1 1967), cases cited therein. No constitutional problem posed instructs receive prosecution's 'with care caution.' States George, 319 77, 80 (CA6 1963). Cf. Nolte, 440 1124 (CA5 1971). 9 there essential difference instructing scrutinize certain determining how much weight accord jury, did here, predicate consideration evidence, doubt. 10 supra, we defendant Sixth Amendment present exculpatory accomplice. given impermissibly obstructs exercise totally excluding relevant makes preliminary determination extremely reliable. 11 Moreover, substantially reducing proof. We Constitution requires proof It possible created minds considered itself believable By creating artificial barrier putatively credible preponderance reduced level necessary Government carry burden. Indeed, where, defendant's rests almost entirely testimony, judge's require establish innocence 12 Because such requirement plainly constitutionally rooted presumption innocence, reversed cause remanded further proceedings opinion. 13 so ordered. 14 Reversed remanded. 15 Justice REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKMUN concur, dissenting. 16 believe Court's fine-spun parsing turns appellate review into sort 'quest error' said Bihn 328 633, 638, 66 1172, 1174, 1485 (1946), forbidden Rule 52(a) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure,1 28 U.S.C. § 2111.2 17 called behalf, presented something dilemma jury. Much tended exculpate significant aspects not. substantiated fact husband3 traveled Louis corroborated prosecution both false last name Gibbs booked Brazil. suggested closeness scarcely helpful 'I little sore Mike (petitioner's husband), thought help me (get bond).' colloquy counsel, while dealing objections charge, concerned ambivalence felt relating accomplices. Petitioner's counsel objecting portion quite different now sustained Court; objection apparently mention term guilty. wholly merit, since, Court Appeals pointed opinion determine whether or facts existed make 19 36 separate covered 52 pages transcript case. question covers pages, reverses basis sentence instruction. emphasized obligated prove Typical statement, repeated throughout least half dozen places: 20 'The entire beginning end never shifts defendants, defendants bound offer excuse, explain . ..' 21 record before us does indicate either mentioned argument Nenetheless, concludes contained 'negative pregnant' could mean jurors reject if veracity, 22 day past even courts instance, parsed engaged nice semantic distinctions absence showing satisfy ordinary lawyer layman substantial rights parties prejudiced supposed error. nuance reversal based suggest seems doubtful either: 23 'A party every effort secure correct rulings, satisfactory him, will permitted ask tribunal; distinct specific exceptions. '. (J) ustice itself, fairness rulings complained of, attention shall specifically precise point exception taken, opportunity reconsider matter remove exception." Allis 155 117, 122, 36, 38, 39 91 (1894), quoting Harvey Tyler, Wall. 328, 339, 871 (1865). 24 Nor, above, particular stand alone; incorporated series predominant theme stage court's whole, isolated passage might error standing alone sufficient reversal. Boyd 271 104, 107, 46 442, 443, 70 857 (1926). smacks scholastic jurisprudence whose shortcomings led enactment 2111 approach section mandates. At time already pleaded complicity concealment notes. dissent suggests objected solely model clarity, apparent grounded broadly decision standard witness. attorney stated: take Instruction 16, it's misleading. don't think belongs cause. There (sic) Government, mislead them who accused pled guilty, making actually accomplice, involved crime.' Certainly, understood directed cautionary though attorney, next, 'accomplice,' produces Now there's lot inferences can drawn item another, that's decide. So given. hits ways point.' Nor preserve appeal. True, couched positive terms. consider believed statement negative pregnant well. unacceptable risk evidence—'throw (it) out,' words judge—if next paragraph instruction, instruct uncorroborated support verdict charges Indictment elements defendants.' light exculpatory, confusing say least. assumed extent inculpatory, still unfair telling acquit basis. Even other error, alone. 'Any defect, irregularity variance affect disregarded.' Fed.Rule Crim.Pric. 52(a). 'On hearing appeal judgment examination regard errors defects parties.' 2111. tried convicted counterfeiting charges. Both appealed convictions Seventh Circuit, affirmed both. sought reviewed.

Category: 0