Document: 461 U.S. 499 103 S.Ct. 1974 76 L.Ed.2d 96 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Kelvin HASTING et al. No. 81-1463. Argued Dec. 7, 1982. Decided May 23, 1983. Syllabus At respondents' trial in Federal District Court on charges of kidnaping, transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes, and conspiracy to commit such offenses, the victims' testimony included recitals concerning multiple incidents rape sodomy by respondents. The defense relied a theory consent and—inconsistently—on possibility that identification respondents was mistaken. None testified. During prosecutor's summation jury, counsel objected when prosecutor began comment evidence, particularly never challenged interstate transportation victims, sexual acts. A motion mistrial denied, jury returned guilty verdict as each respondent all counts. Appeals reversed convictions remanded retrial, concluding violated Fifth Amendment rights under Griffin v. California, 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106. court declined rely harmless-error doctrine, stating application doctrine "would impermissibly compromise clear constitutional violation defendants' rights." Held: 1. erred reversing apparently basis it had supervisory power discipline prosecutors continuing violations Griffin, supra, regardless whether arguments constituted harmless error. Pp. 504-509. (a) goals are implicated powers implementing remedy recognized rights, preserving judicial integrity ensuring conviction rests appropriate considerations before deterring illegal conduct—are not significant context this case if errors alleged harmless. Reversals court's must be approached with some caution view toward balancing interests involved. 505-507. (b) Chapman United States, 386 18, 87 824, 17 705, held error is per se requiring automatic reversal should affirmed reviewing concludes that, whole record, beyond reasonable doubt. It duty consider record ignore harmless, including most violations. Here, Appeals' analysis, making passing reference but applying it, failed strike balance between disciplining one hand, interest prompt administration justice being subjected burdens another other. 507-509. 2. On identified This has authority review records evaluate claim, pertinent question here whether, absent allusion failure proffer evidence rebut testimony, doubt would have verdict. negated any identification, neutral witnesses corroborated critical aspects thus establishing compelling guilt. other scanty tendered related their claims mistaken identity consent. patent inconsistency these theories could hardly escaped jurors' attention. 510-512. 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir., 1981), remanded. John F. DePue, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Paul V. Esposito, Chicago, Ill., Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari because prosecutorial Government's evidence. 2 * October 11, 1979, vicinity East St. Louis, three young man, Randy Newcomb, were riding an automobile turquoise Cadillac forced them off road. occupants car, later Napoleon Stewart, Gregory Williams, Gable Gibson, Kevin Anderson, Kelvin Hasting, here, forcibly removed from car which they Newcomb; Newcomb's presence, Stewart Gibson immediately raped her perform acts sodomy. Newcomb left behind while then taken vacant garage Mo.; there deviant Two Stewart's home where Williams took turns raping sodomizing them. third victim separate repeatedly compelled 3 About 6:00 a.m., released contacted Louis police; furnished descriptions five men, locations attacks. From descriptions, police places taken—the respondent, Stewart. With mother, entered home, arrested found various items clothing personal effects. located, seized, registered Williams. information gathered, Anderson whom victims during lineups. 4 Respondents charged kidnapping 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), woman purposes Mann Act, 2421, foregoing offenses 371. They tried jury. 5 close case, prosecutor, following interchange place: 6 "PROSECUTOR: Let's look at defendants put you so we can perspective. I'm going tell what did do. Defendants cross-examination and— 7 DEFENSE COUNSEL: I'll object Your Honor. You're instruct contrary don't 8 PROSECUTOR: That's correct, 9 THE COURT: right, don't. to. 10 But do Government it. no time ever rapes, or occurred, sodomies. didn't challenge kidnapping, fact girls Louis. Illinois Missouri, location whereabouts relevant times. want focus your attention events crucial evening. pull away beginning incident after bumped, proceeding events. prior that. And use common sense still see tells you. . ." Tr. 873-874. 11 denied. 12 appeal, alleged, claim 106 (1965).1 In terse curiam opinion, citing its decision States Buege, 578 187 (CA7), cert. 439 871, 99 203, 58 183 (1978), proposition occurs even without direct statement defendant take stand "prosecutor refers uncontradicted elected testify he only person able dispute testimony." however, 301. Respondents' remaining disposed unpublished order simply stated judgment new trial.2 13 petitioned rehearing, claiming remark equivocal, non-prejudicial, apply 705 (1967), had, fact, cite.3 petition rehearing certiorari, 456 971, 102 2232, 72 844. reverse. II does make entirely gruesome case. Its cursory treatment generally within jurisdiction heed admonitions about commenting defendant's prosecution's suggests notwithstanding nature error, acted prosecutor—and warn prosecutors—for perceived 3481. pointedly emphasized own Rodriguez, 627 110 (CA7 1980), characterized problem comments silence "continues arise disturbing frequency throughout circuit despite admonition judges court," id., 112. 15 described efforts cure ordering circulation attorneys calling subject. addition, Rodriguez discussed, explicitly adopting, rule announced First Circuit Flannery, 451 880, 882 (1971), grounds unless judge instructs right advises conduct improper. Obviously more familiar than appellate show indifference admonitions; address response. history tension perceives requirements 3481 prosecutors' conduct, proceed assumption stating, exercising jurisdiction. presented purported exercise powers, may analysis Chapman. hold Chapman, discuss Part B, infra, avoided assertion power, justify criminal convictions. A. Supervisory Power 16 "[G]uided justice," McNabb 318 332, 341, 63 608, 613, L.Ed. 819 (1943), federal courts may, limits, formulate procedural rules specifically required Constitution Congress. underlying threefold: implement McNabb, U.S., 340, S.Ct., 612; Rea 350 214, 217, 292, 294, 100 233 (1956); preserve validly 345, 615; Elkins 364 206, 222, 80 1437, 1446, 1669 (1960); finally, designed deter Payner, 447 727, 735-736, n. 8, 2439, 2446-2447, 65 468 (1980). not, if, plainly implied, reverse needed addressed since definition, been obtained asserted Further, context, process carries less weight, essence "reasonable [practice] complained might contributed conviction." Fahy Connecticut, 375 85, 86-87, 84 229, 230, 171 (1963). Finally, deterrence inappropriate where, attenuated Griffin4 means narrowly tailored objectionable available.5 To extent values protected issue exercised vacuum. Rather, reversals "with caution," 734, 2445, involved, 735-736 2446-2447 8; Elkins, 216, 1443; Caceres, 440 741, 755, 1465, 1473, 59 733 (1979); cf. Nardone 308 338, 60 266, 267, 307 (1939). As shall below, give appropriate—if, indeed, any—weight interests. trauma heinous crimes experience trial, forcing relive harrowing experiences now long past, practical problems retrying sensitive issues four years See Morris Slappy, --- ----, 1610, 1617, 75 ---- (1983). conclusion inescapable focused exclusively concern indifferent frequent court. appears decided future similar drastic step preserved cannot lightly casually ignored chastise viewed overreaching. B Harmless Error Since rather starting point recall sequence two cases. first. California accordance provision constitution, commented provide matters expected deny explain. reliance Wilson 149 60, 765, 37 650 (1893), interpreted guarantee against self-incrimination mean unconstitutional burden basic right. Accordingly, permitting accused Amendment. 19 Soon involved conducted decided. concluded affirmatively rejected rule. 20 After examining 50 states along analog, 28 2111, stated: 21 "All rules, federal, serve very useful purpose insofar block setting aside small defects little, any, likelihood having changed result trial. conclude particular unimportant insignificant consistent Constitution, deemed 22, 827. (Emphasis added.) 22 holding governs circumstances,6 given myriad safeguards provided assure fair taking into account reality human fallibility participants, thing error-free, perfect Brown 411 223, 231-232, 93 1565, 1570, 36 208 (1973), Bruton 391 123, 135, 88 1620, 1627, 476 (1968); Engle Isaac, 107, 1558, 1574, 71 783 (1982). reflected concern, noted Roger Traynor, fashion whose mandate reversals, "retreat[ ] responsibilities, becoming instead 'impregnable citadels technicality.' " R. Riddle (1970) (quoting Kavanagh, Improvement Administration Criminal Exercise Judicial Power, A.B.A.J. 222 (1925)). 23 consistently made violations, see, e.g., Brown, 230-232, 1569-1570; Harrington 395 250, 89 1726, 284 (1969); Milton Wainwright, 407 371, 92 2174, 33 (1972). goal, Traynor Supreme noted, "to conserve resources enabling cleanse prejudicial mired error." 81. 24 Appeals, other.7 III 25 turn, then, us, Although sparingly, so.8 Harrington, end undertook "own reading record," 254, 1728. also 24-26, 828-829; 377, 2177; Parker Randolph, 442 62, 80-81, 2132, 2142-2143, 713 (1979) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring). Cf. 231, 1570. assessment, aided explicit that: 26 "Despite magnitude committed guilt, 303. 27 ask this: guilty? begin jurors sat same room day lawyers; much heard who detail repeated wanton hours states, negating identification. Immediately release promptly Neutral testimony. prosecution witness, testified witnessed shortly stopped; owner second episode occurred observed answered Anderson's description. automobile, central singular color Property possession crimes; Williams' fingerprints riding. short, guilt difficult imagine. Paradoxically, identity, yet placing showing hair styles differed assailants' appearances, unable pick respondents, out lineup, (c) dark attacks trips, unobstructed described, (d) mother she saw son "scared." intimated crossed voluntarily raising willingly—a idea charged. That patently totally inconsistent jurors. 29 face overwhelming defendants, little wonder referred "the committed" acknowledged "clear guilt." Of course, none hard realities constitute justification misconduct, accepting utterance improper, criticism him well directed accurately his competence jeopardizing unanswered—and unanswerable—case. satisfied upon 30 based argument, reversed. Because contentions advanced treated remand allow elect press 31 Reversed 32 BLACKMUN vacate consideration exist measure (1967). STEVENS, concurring judgment. 34 my closing argument free therefore unnecessary scope courts,1 unjustifiable decree examination 35 expressly unconstitutional, both brief merits correctness conclusion.2 Without conceding properly Court, devote several pages issue.3 raised below clearly record. parties agree determining necessary content affected deliberations Under circumstances, constitutionality remarks "fairly subsumed" petition, I believe proper recognize erroneously, ground considering doctrine.4 witnesses, questions portions contradict portions. adduced five-day weaknesses presentations invited inferences main defendants. improper testify. people arrived Millas' Steak House midnight driven women, borrowed boyfriend. driver went bar-restaurant stayed hours, drinking Pina Coladas dancing, back seat beer man. When approximately drive. oil. Instead turning direction homes, highway bring least all-night gas station, turned left. route led Clark station spot Defense facts attempt cast doubts ability identify accurately, suggest implausibility accounts.5 argued, quite divert jury's case—what happened road Cadillac. themselves.6 38 written before, election "is almost certain prejudice matter else happens room." Davis, 437 928, 933 1971). (1965), either draw adverse inference silence. protective shield converted sword cuts area legitimate ante 502, remotely comparable Griffin7 (1893).8 violate (1976) construed Wilson. 39 If persuaded possibly join Court's sua sponte determination. conviction, stringent test—more test constitutionally permissible proceedings find merely believes "overwhelming." wrote Kotteakos 328 750, 763-764, 66 1239, 1247, 90 1557 (1946): 40 "it function determine innocence Nor speculate probable reconviction decide according how speculation comes is, [the jury] judgment, effect reasonably decision. impact done wrong minds one's own, total setting." 41 far too busy spending countless transcripts effort deliberations. us printed appendix containing portion exhibits discussed length transcript. spent copy transcript filed read 1,013 pages, few 450 suppression hearing. task organizing digesting formidable one. perpetrators descriptions—"the goatee," tall one," skinnier heavier set bigger "a stocky, heavy guy," fat thinner big hat," guy out," fro," "shorter short hair," "skinnier shorter younger smudged up nose," smashed nose" ones back" name. matter, impossible member kind conscientious detailed precede determination insult imply, today, trusted normally remand. Ante, 510. 42 enough persuade me high probability correctly participant 1979. anything approaching certainty deliberating fate entertained verdicts purged 43 "described identification." 511. characterize testimony—particularly relating identification—as "detailed."9 true ample opportunity observe assailants, reason sincerity. different opportunities lineup place.10 Indeed, although men road, said four.11 Hence leaves open confusion group. 44 share reaction offensive character misconduct believe, factor enhances importance sure followed individuals. case; did, feel strongly clumsy avoid undertaking better performed judges. We, go through ordeal testifying again reversible committed. surely spend jail just overwhelming. 45 remarks, concur opinion.12 46 BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, part dissenting part. 47 issued App. Pet. Cert. A-1. Most consists discussion facts. Id., A-1-A-3. legal 1978), A-4. violation. [respondents'] A-5. 48 face, adopts Such 827, argue disregard justified powers. Brief 15-36. reject invoke explanation why appeals required, least, expressly.1 refusal offer reasons refusal, doubt.2 49 deciding above, relies decisions support "without jurisdiction." 505. Based assumption, poses review: "whether, Chapman." Ibid. relying sheer was. Moreover, wholly important Given obviously supported therefore, base propriety assumed disposition provides commission analyzed carefully, all, posed explain evident suggests, example, "in 'reasonable conviction.' 506 (citation omitted). Unfortunately, precise "context" arose. If, line intentional prosecutors, considerably different. An assessment weight carried "integrity process" substantially sort. imagine series officers upholding law considerable detrimental call action restore process. 51 "deterrence available." (footnotes disputing means. Prior experience, demonstrated futility Department disciplinary proceedings. 52 "reversals 'with caution' ----. goes "Court interests." According "did relieve events." view, "[t]he court." speculation. absence explanation, way knowing motivated Appeals. speculative unwarranted exacerbated assume outset 53 refused, adequate doctrine. calls vacating remanding 520, extended relationship those rule, rejection inform first instance. 54 clear, possible establish Compare ante, ,506, 509-510 506-507, 509. 505 ("We convictions" (emphasis supplied)). attempting using great impediment remains, chooses resolve reached. reach question, necessarily precludes conviction. 55 20, 826. reversal. prevalence statutes "serve trial." light, "there Ibid.3 56 Connecticut Johnson, 969, 74 823 (1983), plurality "Chapman continued trend practice country England 'revers[ing] judgments trivial errors.' 975 notes, goal 'to error.' 509 stands entitled subject and, burden, determined meaning regard, limits remedies available violated, advances social allowing upset otherwise valid 57 jurisprudential policies applied covers. suggest, imperative; nothing always applied, tainted guarantees themselves require authority, provisions supports though bar action. sources authority.4 source carefully confined forgo inquiry "[j]udicial supervision implies maintaining civilized standards procedure evidence." 612. Thiel Southern Pacific Co., 225, 984, 988, 1181 (1946). Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 94 396, 368 suggested system "appellate will, conform mandates, likewise follow procedures desirable viewpoint sound nowise commanded statute Constitution." 146, 400. Mesarosh 352 1, 77 (1956), observed: "This over courts. waters polluted." 14, 8. Communist Party Control Board, 351 115, 124, 663, 667, 1003 (1956) ("The untainted certainly cherished our institutions"). Other cases Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 1868, 431 (1974), "We decision, condone courts, instruction, will continue discourage it." 648, 1873, 23. (1980), serves 'twofold' illegality protecting integrity." 736, 2446, 8.5 These indicate policy supporting existence irreconcilable conflict. Both advance public orderly efficient justice. further strong engaged pattern intentionally violating effective deterrent, avert damage integrity. Admittedly, circumstances conflict public's arguable insuring agents, refrain stronger defendant. Convictions important, cost.6 occasion define contours explore appropriate. much, clear: extreme careful consideration, balancing, interests.7 considerable, controlling, balance. requires adopt light potentially stake, surprising were.8 argued 3481, 612, 1231, (1965). Section provides: "In persons shall, request, competent witness. His request create presumption him." current codification Act March 16, 1878, Stat. 30, c. 37, (1893). There hears "comment, especially hostile comment, [the] [to testify]," 65, 766, effectuate Congressional statute. Bruno 287, 198, 257 describe contentions. parties' briefs Arguably, "On hearing appeal ., regard affect substantial parties." STEVENS correct comment. resolved applied. (I). dealt offending directing cause disciplined, S.D.Ill.Rule 33, asking initiate him, CFR 0.39 seq. informs last years, Justice's Office Professional Responsibility investigated complaints unethical assistant attorney resigned investigation grand 21, 16. publically chastised identifying opinion. Modica, 663 1173, 1183-1186 (CA2 1981). involve "rights infraction Payne Arkansas, 356 560, 78 844, (1958) (coerced confession); Gideon 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963) (right counsel); Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 437, 749 (1927) (impartial judge). mandates entire 2, result. predecessor, 391, enacted 1919, 1181, technical errors, defects, exceptions plain meaning, reached violation, 200; 764-765, 1247-1248, original was, repealed 1948 replaced year version term "technical" deleted, 76. repeal reenactment resulted Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) Fed.R.Civ.P. 61 redundant, Wright Miller, Practice Procedure 2881 2111 terms coextensive 41-43 (1970). need issue, affirmance reviewed, precisely position addressing BRENNAN'S observes, refer nor factors power. BRENNAN enunciate general principles Writ 12, 10; 22-24, 19. Joint 37-40. Rule 23(1)(c) ("Only forth fairly comprised therein considered court"); 40.1(d)(2) ("the court, option, notice presented"). reviews lower jurisdictional limitation Robertson & Kirkham, Jurisdiction 418 (R. Wolfson P. Kurland ed. 1951). usually decline occasionally depart practice. See, Procunier Navarette, 434 555, 559-560, 6, 98 855, 858-859, (1977); Washington 426 238, nn. 8-9, 2040, 2046, 597 (1976); Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. University Foundation, 402 313, 320-321, 91 1434, 1438-1439, 788 (1971). 169-174, 192-193, 204-213, 249-257 (cross-examination woman); 335-338, 342-344, 351-363, 369-374 431-441, 448, 454, 462-465, 468-472, 497-502 528-531, 536-540, 553-556, 562-564 man); 884-885, 891-892, 902, 933-935 (closing arguments). attempted undermine government's pointing vagueness witnesses' accounts suspects. Reference naturally "He know He got down alley. blood bottom concrete steps. box. wig off. beat mistreated her. walked place cool cucumber Mr. Villasenor conscious wanted get damaged injured woman. "These things seen fit "And world, anybody know, know. "Essie Mae dead, can't side story. won't." 611, 1231. "When Attorney, referring 'I say you, am crime, stop putting good character, hand Heaven crime,' many words circumstance Nothing induce 66, For regarding suspects gave police, Suppr. Hearing 119-120, 318-319; Vol. 45-47, 55-56, 648. 114-129, 295-310, 407-423. 105-107, 235. 193, 215-216, 222-223, 485-486, 885, 903-904, 906. Asked discrepancy, witness explained, "my mind really confused sit trying forget everything." 193. attendant black 753. reverses remands permit appeals' 18. adopted pursuant subsequent adoption previously points out, 504-505 cited "Rodriguez improper." 504-505. strict rule." F.2d, 113. POWELL "[n]ormally appropriately below." 985 (dissenting opinion). Accord, Moore Illinois, 220, 232, 458, 466, 424 Coleman Alabama, 399 1999, 2004, 387 (1970); Foster 394 440, 444, 1127, 1129, Wade, 388 218, 242, 1926, 1940, 1149 declines 828, 978, (1983) (STEVENS, judgment) (Chapman "does determination: permits cases" original) (footnote omitted)). Similarly, Congress presumably enact, covering alter noteworthy majority Hampton 425 484, 1646, 113 (1976), involving entrapment defense, employed outrageous "predisposed." 491, 493-495, 1650, 1651-1652 (POWELL, judgment); 495, 497, 1652, 1653 (BRENNAN, dissenting). consider, text protected. Whether ultimately violated. difficulties surrounding inquiries. "[a] liberty often depend struggle cold harmless." enforce established defendant, 10, 1625, result), Like 509-510, event, think forecloses

Category: 0