Document: 415 U.S. 308 94 S.Ct. 1105 39 L.Ed.2d 347 Joshaway DAVIS, Petitioner,v.State of ALASKA. No. 72—5794. Argued Dec. 12, 1973. Decided Feb. 27, 1974. Syllabus Petitioner was convicted grand larceny and burglary following a trial in which the court on motion prosecution issued protective order prohibiting questioning Green, key witness, concerning Green's adjudication as juvenile delinquent relating to his probation status at time events he testify. The court's based state provisions protecting anonymity offenders. Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. Held: denied right confrontation witnesses under Sixth Fourteenth Amendments, Pp. 315 321. (a) defense entitled attempt show that Green biased because vulnerable probationer concern might be suspect charged against petitioner, limiting cross-examination precluded from showing possible bias. 315—318. (b) Petitioner's is paramount State's policy offenders any temporary embarrassment by disclosure record outweighed petitioner's effectively cross-examine witness. 319—320. 499 P.2d 1025, reversed remanded. Robert H. Wagstaff, Anchorage, Alaska, for petitioner. Charles M. Merriner, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari this case consider whether Confrontation Clause requires defendant criminal allowed impeach credibility witness directed bias deriving witness' probationary when such an impeachment would conflict with asserted interest preserving confidentiality adjudications delinquency. 2 (1) 3 When Polar Bar Anchorage closed early morning hours February 16, 1970, well over thousand dollars cash checks bar's Mosler safe. About midday, it discovered bar had been broken into safe, about two feet square weighing several hundred pounds, removed premises. 4 Later afternoon State Troopers received word safe 26 miles outside near home Jess Straight family. subsequently determined one stolen Bar, pried open contents removed. Richard Straight's stepson, told investigating troopers scene noon 16 seen spoken Negro men standing alongside late-model metallic blue Chevrolet sedan where later discovered. next day police investigators brought him station given six photographs adult males. After examining 30 seconds minute, identified photograph petitioner encountered before described police. arrested day, 18. On 19, picked out lineup seven 5 At trial, evidence introduced effect paint chips found trunk rented could have originated surface Fourther, Further, were insulation characteristic safes. matched 6 crucial prosecution. He testified while errand mother confronted beside Chevrolet, parked road family's house. man rear car spoke asking if lived nearby father home. offered help, but offer rejected. return again passed saw whom conversation 'something like crowbar' hands. 'crowbar.' point, according parked. 7 Before testimony taken prosecutor moved prevent reference course cross-examination. to, after having adjudicated burglarizing cabins. years age turned 17 prior trial. 8 In opposing order, counsel made clear not introduce general character truthful person but, rather, specifically same assisting identifying burglary. From seek show—or least argue—that acted fear or jeopardy probation. Not only hasty faulty identification shift suspicion away himself who robbed subject undue pressure identifications revocation. revealed necessary probe prejudice generally call good question. 9 relying Rule Children's Procedure 23,1 Stat. § 47.10.080(g) (1971).2 10 Although prevented revealing delinquency originally did best expose mind upset uncomfortable discovery claimed worried suspicions expected harbor him, though admit crossed thought something do crime. 11 Defense cross-examined part follows: 12 'Q. Were you all fact your property? 13 'A. No, sir. 14 Did feel they some way this? 15 though? really. 18 19 20 moment somehow think involved 21 I ask few questions all. 22 ever enter you—that connected didn't really bother me, no. 23 Well, . .. 24 mean, know, didn't—it come my worrying know. 25 That wasn't—wasn't question, Green. that—not so much not, there possibility this, their mind, came across yes, 27 cross mind? 28 Yes. 29 So understand went down the—you drove in—in mile 25, Glenn Highway city station? Yes, 31 And then investigators' room Investigator Gray Weaver? 32 Yeah. 33 started about—about incident, correct? 34 35 Had questioned law enforcement officers? 36 37 'MR. RIPLEY: I'm going object Your Honor, it's carry-on rehash thing. He's attempting raise jury's 38 'THE COURT: I'll sustain objection.' Since prohibited making inquiry being adjudication, protestations unconcern categorical denial similar law-enforcement interrogation unchallenged. tension between particularly evident final answer probable underwent burglaries rested, can regarded highly very least. asserting, protection ruling, give questionably cross-examiner pursuing relevant line inquiry; doubtful bold 'No' absent belief shielded traditional It difficult conceive situation more clearly illustrating need cross- examination. remainder devoted prove basis what remembered earlier photographic display lineup, road. 40 affirmed conviction,3 concluding resolve potential defendant's meaningful adverse offender since 'our reading transcript convinces us able adequately question youth considerable detail motive.' 1036 (1972). admitted denials sense anxiety apprehension upon safe's close possibly self-serving, 'the suggestion nonetheless attention jury, body afforded opportunity observe demeanor pass credibility.' Ibid. concluded that, light indirect references permitted, no error. 41 we limited 410 925, 93 1392, 586 (1973), essential turns correctness evaluation 'adequacy' scope permitted. disagree interpretation reverse. 42 (2) 43 Amendment Constitution guarantees accused 'to him.' This secured defendants federal proceedings Pointer v. Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 923 (1965). means than confront physically. 'Our cases construing (confrontation) clause hold primary cross-examination.' Douglas Alabama, 415, 418, 1074, 1076, 934 Professor Wigmore stated: 44 'The main purpose secure opponent demands confrontation, idle gazing gazed cross-examination, cannot except direct personal putting obtaining immediate answers.' (Emphasis original.) J. Wigmore, Evidence 1395, p. 123 (3d ed. 1940). 45 Cross-examination principal believability truth are tested. Subject always broad discretion judge preclude repetitive unduly harassing interrogation, permitted delve story test perceptions memory, has traditionally impeach, i.e., discredit, One discrediting conviction By doing intends afford jury infer less likely average trustworthy citizen testimony. introduction crime thus attack A particular effected toward biases, prejudices, ulterior motives may relate directly issues personalities hand. partiality exploration 'always affecting weight testimony.' 3A 940, 775 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). recognized exposure motivation testifying proper important function constitutionally protected crossexamination. Greene McElroy, 360 474, 496, 79 1400, 1413, 1377 (1959).4 46 instant case, sought existence projudice causing make initial turn affected in-court petitioner.5 47 speculate sole accepted reasoning fully present it. But conclude jurors benefit theory them informed judgment place provided 'a link proof act.' U.S., 419, S.Ct., 1077. accuracy truthfulness elements claim develop admissible inference probationer, cf. Alford United States, 282 687, 51 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931),6 investigation. 48 accept Court's conclusion adequate issue properly jury. While biased, unable argue why otherwise lacked degree impartiality engaged speculative baseless apparently blameless or, prosecutor's objection put it, 'rehash' these facts seems effective, should jurors, triers credibility, appropriately draw inferences reliability effective "would constitutional error first magnitude amount want cure it.' Brookhart Janis, 384 1, 3, 86 1245, 1246, 314.' Smith Illinois, 390 129, 131, 88 748, 750, 956 (1968). (3) 49 outweighs competing cross-examining argues juvenile's cause impairment rehabilitative goals correctional procedures. exposure, argued, encourage commit further acts delinquency, lose employment opportunities suffer unnecessarily youthful transgression. 50 challenge matter its own administration justice preserve offender. Cf. re Gault, 387 87 1428, 1442, 527 (1967). Here, however, suggesting and, therefore, either believed carefully considered light. Serious damage strength real pursue inquiry. setting Whatever result family record—if insisted using case—is influence supra, upheld incarceration prison 'given promise expectation immunity, coercive detention officers States.' 693, 220. response argument record, 52 '(N)o obligation imposed court, suggested below, protect discredited short attempted invasion self incrimination, invoked. There duty go beyond bounds merely harass, annoy humiliate Id., 694, 53 As Alford, desire fulfill public testify free reputation unblemished must fall process defending himself. 54 offender's require yielding vital circumstances refraining case; cannot, consistent bear full burden vindicating secrecy records. affirming convictions remanded inconsistent opinion. 55 ordered. 56 Reversed 57 STEWART, concurring. 58 holds Amendments conferred probationer. Such .,' ante, 317. joining opinion, emphasize neither nor suggests confers every through past convictions. 59 WHITE, REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. 60 see principle stake here. nothing typical instance exercising control limit followed decision appellate refusing disturb itself done substantial harm defense. Yet insists second-guessing courts inviting review ruling believes gone enough. undertake task, other reason little faith our ability, fact-bound cold improve judges agree them. affirm judgment. provides: 'No disposition shall acting exercise jurisdiction use presentencing procedure superior discretion, determines appropriate.' Section provides pertinent part: commitment placement child minor subsequent ..' also conviction, separate felon possession concealable firearm. 'Certain principles remained relatively immutable jurisprudence. governmental action seriously injures individual, reasonableness depends findings, used Government's disclosed individual untrue. documentary evidence, even consists individuals whose memory who, fact, perjurers persons motivated malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, jealousy. formalized protections requirements .' 1413. '(A) former testifying; ultimate establish testifying.' 776 original; footnotes omitted.) abuse prejudicial error, dimension holding doubt. 132—133, 750 751, (1968), relied, part, reverse grounds.

Category: 0