Document: 483 U.S. 44 107 S.Ct. 2704 97 L.Ed.2d 37 Vickie Lorene ROCK, Petitionerv.ARKANSAS. No. 86-130. Argued March 23, 1987. Decided June 22, Syllabus Petitioner was charged with manslaughter for shooting her husband. In order to refresh memory as the precise details of shooting, she twice underwent hypnosis by a trained neuropsychologist. These sessions were tape-recorded. After hypnosis, remembered indicating that gun defective and had misfired, which corroborated an expert witness' testimony. However, trial court ruled no hypnotically refreshed testimony would be admitted, limited petitioner's reiteration statements doctor prior reported in doctor's notes. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed conviction, ruling limitations on did not violate constitutional right testify, criminal defendants' is inadmissible per se because it unreliable. Held: 1. Criminal defendants have testify their own behalf under Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, Compulsory Sixth Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 49-53. 2. Although present relevant without limitation, restrictions placed defendant's State's evidentiary rules may arbitrary or disproportionate purposes they are designed serve. 53-56. 3. Arkansas' rule excluding all infringes impermissibly his behalf. Despite any unreliability introduce into testimony, procedure has been credited instrumental obtaining particular types information. Moreover, subject verification corroborating evidence other traditional means assessing accuracy, inaccuracies can reduced procedural safeguards such use tape video recording. legitimate interest barring unreliable does justify exclusion reliable individual case. Here, expert's corroboration enhanced memories judge's conclusion recordings indicated suggest responses leading questions circumstances should considered determining admissibility. 56-62. 288 Ark. 566, 708 S.W.2d 78 (1986), vacated remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, POWELL, STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed dissenting opinion, WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, joined, post, p. 62. James M. Luffman, Rogers, Ark., petitioner. J. Steven Clark, Little Rock, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN Court. 1 issue presented this case whether prohibiting admission violated defendant 2 * Rock death husband, Frank July 2, 1983. A dispute simmering about Frank's wish move from couple's small apartment adjacent Vickie's beauty parlor trailer owned outside town. That night fight erupted when refused let petitioner eat some pizza prevented leaving get something else eat. App. 98, 103-104. When police arrived scene found floor bullet wound chest. urged officers help Tr. 230, cried sergeant who took charge, "please save him" "don't him die." Id., at 268. removed building upset interfered investigation repeated attempts telephone call husband's parents. 263-264, 267-268. According one investigating officers, told "she stood up leave room [her husband] grabbed throat choked threw wall . time walked over picked weapon pointed toward he hit again shot him." 281.1 3 Because could remember attorney suggested submit memory. hypnotized Doctor Bettye Back, licensed neuropsychologist training field hypnosis. 901-903. Back interviewed hour first session, taking notes general history recollections shooting. 46-47.2 Both recorded tape. 53. relate new information during either sessions, id., 78, 83, but, after able incident thumb hammer gun, but held finger trigger. She also recalled discharged husband arm scuffle. 29, 38. As result counsel arranged examine handgun, single-action Hawes .22 Deputy Marshal. inspection revealed prone fire, dropped, trigger's being pulled. 662-663, 711. 4 prosecutor learned motion exclude judge pretrial hearing concluded admitted. issued limiting "matters stated examiner hypnosis." Pet. Cert. xvii.3 At trial, introduced expert, 647-712, description events day sketchy Back's See 96-104.4 jury convicted charge sentenced 10 years' imprisonment $10,000 fine. 5 On appeal, rejected claim defense. "the dangers admitting kind outweigh whatever probative value have," decided follow approach States witnesses se. 573, 81 (1986). acknowledged "a fundamental," 578, S.W.2d, 84, rights. Any "prejudice deprivation" suffered "was minimal resulted actions erroneous court." 580, 86. We granted certiorari, 479 947, 430, 93 381 consider constitutionality II 6 Petitioner's excluded bottomed point development our adversary system, cannot doubted take witness stand This, course, change historic common-law view, parties litigation, including defendants, disqualified testifying outcome trial. generally Wigmore, Evidence §§ 576, 579 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1979). principal rationale possible untrustworthiness party's Under common law, practice develop permitting tell side story, making unsworn statement elicited through direct examination cross-examination. § 579, 827. 7 This Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 570, 573-582, 756, 758-763, 783 (1961), detailed transition incompetency competency. there recounted, came recognized advances both " 'detection guilt' 'the protection innocence,' 581, S.Ct., 762, quoting Am.L.Rev. 396 (1867), end second half 19th century,5 except Georgia enacted statutes declared competent testify. U.S., 577 n. 6, 596-598, 760 770-771.6 Congress competency statute Act Mar. 16, 1878, 20 Stat. 30, amended, 18 U.S.C. 3481, similar developments followed countries. Thus, more than 25 years ago state: 8 "In sum, decades consensus English-speaking world rational justification sworn accused, above others position meet prosecution's case." 582, 763.7 9 one's sources several provisions Constitution. It rights "are essential due process law fair process." Faretta California, 422 806, 819, 15, 95 2525, 2533 45 562 (1975). necessary ingredients guarantee shall deprived liberty include heard offer testimony: "A person's reasonable notice him, opportunity defense—a court—are basic system jurisprudence; these include, minimum, represented counsel." (Emphasis added.) re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948).8 11 602, 773. (Clark, concurring) (Fourteenth Amendment secures "right choose between silence behalf").9 12 grants "witnesses favor," guaranteed courts Amendment. Washington Texas, 388 14, 17-19, 87 1920, 1922-1923, 1019 (1967). Logically included accused's whose "material favorable defense," United Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 858, 867, 102 3440, 3446, 73 1193 (1982), himself, decide favor do so. fact, most important defense many cases himself. There today denies accused Like truthfulness witnesses, veracity, concern behind original rule, tested adequately Westen, Clause, Mich.L.Rev. 71, 119-120 (1974). 13 2533, 14 "grants personally make counsel, must 'informed nature cause accusation,' 'confronted him,' accorded 'compulsory favor.' 15 Even fundamental personal self-representation, "necessarily implied structure Amendment," ibid., version words. conduct calling incomplete if himself witness. 16 corollary compelled Harris New York, 401 222, 91 643, 648, 28 (1971), stated: "Every privileged defense, refuse so." 225, 645. Three Justices agreed encompasses right: "[The self-incrimination] fulfilled only 'to remain silent unless chooses speak unfettered exercise will.' choice privilege." Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 8, 84 1489, 1493, 653 (1964). removed.)10 III 17 question now before restricted state excludes posthypnosis faced challenge ensure trustworthy evidence, ability (1967), confronted persons principals, accomplices, accessories same crime another. statute, like prohibition grounded reliability interested party: "It thought two allowed each other, 'each try swear out charge.' well disqualifications interest, rested unstated premises subordinate court's preventing perjury, decisions best avoided might perjured, even available crucial issue." (Footnote omitted.) 21, 1924, Benson States, 146 325, 335, 60, 63, 36 991 (1892). 19 recognized, codefendant nonconstitutional grounds 1918, refusing bound dead hand 1789," '[T]he conviction [is] truth likely understanding seem knowledge facts involved case, credit weight determined court. .' Rosen 245 467, 471, 38 148, 150, 62 406 (1918). 21 reasoning protections accused. particular, reasoned part "to admissible 1925. 22 With thus grounds, mere presence courtroom enough satisfy Constitution's Clause. By having benefit accomplice's State arbitrarily denied put physically mentally capable observed, material defense." 23 Just apply competence stand, permits portions Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 1038, 35 297 (1973), invalidated hearsay ground abridged "present 302, 1049. tried murder another person repeatedly confessed acquaintances. coupled "voucher" allow cross-examine murderer directly, introducing concerning confessions, critical reversed judgment holding conflicts "not applied mechanistically defeat ends justice," standards process. Ibid. Court's demonstrate bore "assurances trustworthiness" unreliable, exculpatory 24 Of limitation. "may, appropriate cases, bow accommodate interests 295, 1046.11 But applying its evaluate served limitation imposed IV enunciated case; always unreliable.12 Arkansas, matters prove operates detriment undergoes regard reasons it, place, independent produced.13 26 application significant adverse effect virtually describing occurred despite those witnesses. importantly, permitted describe actual words contained gun's tendency misfire taken greater significance trigger went off arm. 27 establishing simply number tends unreliable.14 Other adopted exclusionary however, done so defendant. failed perform analysis stake.15 proved product prehypnosis eschewed permit testimony.16 Hypnosis physicians psychologists valid therapeutic technique since 1958, although accepted theory explain phenomenon, single definition Council Scientific Affairs, Status Refreshing Recollection Use Hypnosis, 253 J.A.M.A. 1918-1919 (1985) (Council Report).17 investigations, controversial, current medical legal view role unsettled. 29 Responses individuals vary greatly. popular belief guarantees accuracy recall yet established foundation and, often response appears increase correct incorrect recollections.18 characteristics lead introduction inaccurate memories: becomes "suggestible" please hypnotist answers thinks will met approval; "confabulate," is, fill imagination answer coherent complete; experiences "memory hardening," gives great confidence true false memories, effective cross-examination difficult. Orne et al., Hypnotically Induced Testimony, Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives 171 (G. Wells & E. Loftus, eds., 1984); Diamond, Inherent Problems Pretrial Prospective Witness, Calif.L.Rev. 313, 333-342 (1980). concededly introduce, investigative leads identifications later confirmed evidence. See, e.g., People Hughes, 59 N.Y.2d 523, 533, 466 N.Y.S.2d 255, 453 N.E.2d 484, 488 (1983); see R. Udolf, Forensic 11-16 (1983). 30 introduces reduced, perhaps eliminated, safeguards. One set guidelines calls performed psychologist psychiatrist special investigation. Orne, Misuse Int'l Clinical Experimental 311, 335-336 (1979). procedures reduce possibility biases communicated hypersuggestive hypnotist. Suggestion less conducted neutral setting subject. Tape recording interrogations, before, during, reveal asked. 336.19 Such control subject's motivations confabulate, provide controlling overt suggestions. 31 applicable previously Certain verified highly accurate Cross-examination, face confident defendant, tool revealing inconsistencies. educated risks cautionary instructions. Indeed, probably advantage establish carefully extent minimize decrease credibility introduce. 32 prepared endorse qualifications tool; scientific phenomenon effects still infancy. justified unable extend exclusions Wholesale inadmissibility restriction absence clear repudiating validity recollections. within powers aid evaluation show justified. shown untrustworthy immune evaluating disable presenting 33 condition provided questions. 3, supra. Those argument admissibility behalf.20 34 vacated, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. Chief whom SCALIA join, dissenting. deciding Rock's properly cited factors undermine induced today, observed suggestion, artificially increased following No known procedures, agree, insure inherently Having acceded factual nevertheless concludes attempt assessment request I find Constitution ruling. words, decision "bottomed" recognition "constitutional Ante, 49. While dictum, existence right, see, (1975), principles identified underlying little support invalidating 39 matter, recites, facilitates truth-seeking function advancing innocence.' 50, (1961). hardly here, where advancement sole motivation posits, testimony" upheld because, "[l]ike veracity cross-examination." 52. candidly admits inspired hypnotism makes "cross-examination difficult," ante, thereby diminishing test Rock. Nevertheless, we told, sanctioned 'above case.' supra, 763. relying reasoning, apparently forgets us arises virtue loss, rendered 40 conjunction reliance broad relevance barely concerns itself recognition, throughout decisions, individual's restrictions. relied envision absolute often-times give way countervailing considerations. 275, 508, (1948); Morrissey Brewer, 408 481-482, 2593, 2600-2601, 484 (1972); Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 263, 90 1011, 1018, 287 (1970). Similarly, 1046, (1973); 1925, relieve compliance "rules assure fairness ascertainment guilt innocence." Surely trustworthiness suspect said fall description.* 41 traditionally "respect establishment implementation procedures." 302-303, 1049-1050; Marshall Lonberger, 459 422, 438, 103 843, 853, 74 646 (1983) ("[T]he federal engage finely tuned review wisdom rules"); Patterson 432 197, 201, 2319, 2322, 53 281 (1977) ("[W]e lightly construe intrude upon administration justice States"). think deference highest area this, where, concedes, "scientific infancy." 2714. Turning blind eye concession, instead restrict respond changes 42 entirely permissible novel difficult question. National Institute Justice, Issues Practices, Refreshed Enhanced Memory Tampering Evidence? 51 (1985). proposition, solution imposes equally sensible, though requiring matter res nova every pose serious administrative difficulties. until much now, warrant mandating how deal issue. Another officer slightly different events: "She going go outside. He began choking her. They struggled moment gun. alone off. accident didn't mean shoot him. hospital talk 388. 301-304, 337-338; 3-10. handwritten regarding read follows: "Pt states husb. discussing moving prev. owned. 'set on' trailer—she felt discuss. bec[ame] lay down. Bro. left. pizza, wouldn't any. [something] her—He pushed table corner [with] it. watchmen business sets them. want hitting anymore. door, slammed door 'gun fell died' [pt looked misty eyed here—near tears]" (additions Back). 40. full reads "NOW 26th November, 1984, comes captioned pre-trial hearing, finds: "1. September 28, Defendant hypnotic trance Dr. PhD, Fayetteville, express purpose enhancing 1983, involving "2. professionally qualified administer objective expected made Defendant. employed independent, professional basis. written related pre-hypnotic interview. employ post-hypnotic suggestion phase "3. charges Constitution, inherent eliminating meaningful matters. Testimony resulting excluded." xvii. interrupted prosecutor, objected scope order. Each attempted event proceed few inadmissible. For example, objection activities morning 11, discussion disagreement trailer, 12, brother's replacing shock absorbers van, brother-in-law's return 19-20. then proffer, jury, adhere prosecution detail expressly described gave hearing. 32-35. prosecutor's "ninety-nine percent everything [petitioner] testified proffer" 35. removal civil parties. 826 accused: "If, competent, (it believed) damage seriously enforced law. injure assist cause, undergoing ordeal cross-examination, appear disadvantage dangerous innocent man." 828. Art. 10. Rule 601 Rules provides competency: otherwise rules." struck down unconstitutional presentation statement, insofar elicit statement." 596, 770. declined reach involve incompetent 572, 758 Two Justices, explicitly. 600-601, 772-773 (concurring opinions). Before argued right. Once longer doubt heard, adjudication, vindicated affording factfinder. reaches beyond trial: constitutionally required extrajudicial includes affected Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 782, 786, 1756, 1759, 1761, 656 (1973) (probation revocation); 489, 2604, (1972) (parole 269, 1021, (1970) (termination welfare benefits). numerous occasions proceeded premise Nix Whiteside, 475 157, 164, 106 988, 993, 89 123 (1986); 186, 5, 1004, (BLACKMUN, concurring judgment); Jones Barnes, 463 745, 751, 3308, 3312, 77 987 (defendant "ultimate authority certain behalf"); Brooks Tennessee, 605, 612, 1891, 1895, 358 ("Whether tactical right"). Numerous offend 1049 ("In State, comply innocence"); (1967) (opinion construed disapproving testimonial privileges nonarbitrary disqualify incapable observing mental infirmity infancy witnesses). leaves discretion admit persuaded Oral Arg. (statement Attorney General Arkansas). fully responsible prejudice chose resort 86 expressed theme renewed 20, 21-22, 24, 36. noted, given previous indication disfavor preparation state-court rulings Contreras 718 P.2d 129 (Alaska 1986); ex rel. Collins Superior County Maricopa, 132 Ariz. 180, 207-208, 644 1266, 1293-1294 (1982); Quintanar, 659 710, 711 (Colo.App.1982); Davis, 490 A.2d (Del.Super.1985); Bundy 471 So.2d 9, 18-19 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 894, 269 Moreno, Haw. 233, 709 (1985); Haislip, 237 Kan. 461, 482, 701 909, 925-926, 474 1022, 575, 88 558 Collins, 296 Md. 670, 464 1028 Commonwealth Kater, Mass. 519, 447 1190 Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 329 N.W.2d 743 added to, 417 1129, 336 751 Alsbach Bader, 700 823 (Mo.1985); Palmer, 210 Neb. 206, 218, 313 655 (1981); Robison 677 1080, 1085 (Okla.Crim.App.), 467 1246, 104 3524, 82 831 (1984); Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. 97, 110, 436 170, 177 Martin, 101 Wash.2d 713, 684 651 (1984). Ture, 353 502, 513-514 (Minn.1984). California Shirley, Cal.3d 18, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 723 1354, 860, 133, 114 575-578, 83-84. while far stricter rule—barring hypnotized—it explicitly excepted "[W]hen himself—not merely witness—who submits experience render elects stand. adopt herein exception avoid impairing behalf." Cal.3d, 67, P.2d, 1384. Some jurisdictions affects credibility, admissibility, Beck Norris, 801 F.2d 242, 244-245 (CA6 Awkard, 597 667, 669 (CA9), 444 885, 100 179, 116 (1979); Wren, 425 756 (La.1983); Brown, 337 138, 151 (N.D.1983); Glebock, 616 897, 903-904 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981); Chapman 638 1280, 1282 (Wyo.1982). individualized inquiry McQueen Garrison, 814 951, 958 (CA4 1987) (reliability evaluation); Wicker McCotter, 487, 492-493 (CA5) (probative weighed prejudicial effect), 478 1010, 3310, Iwakiri, Idaho 618, 625, 571, 578 (1984) (weigh "totality circumstances"). jurisdictions, prerequisites associated Perhaps line Hurd, N.J. 525, (1981). Sprynczynatyk Motors Corp., 771 1112, 1122-1123 (CA8 1985), 1263, 572 Harrington, M.J. 797, 803 (A.C.M.R.1984); House 445 815, 826-827 (Miss.1984); Beachum, N.M. 682, 689-690, 643 246, 253-254 (App.1981), writ quashed, 98 51, 1040 Weston, Ohio App.3d 279, 287, 805, 813 Armstrong, 110 Wis.2d 555, 386, 461 946, 2125, 1304 "involv[ing] focusing attention; responsiveness suggestions; suspension disbelief lowering judgment; potential altering perception, motor control, subjective responding involuntarily." Report, J.A.M.A., 1919. used recollection, outcomes occurs: (1) produces substantially nonhypnotic recollections; (2) yields memory; or, frequently, (3) results reported, contain details. data fourth alternative, namely, increases remembering information." 1921. Courts varying versions Oregon requirement Ore.Rev.Stat. 136.675 disposition unnecessary claims restricting unconstitutionally denial need interferes counsel. concedes "substantial question" raised appeal Reply Brief recognizes, must, governing "testimonial [and] witnesses" "offend testify." 55—56, 11. fail discern difference here.

Category: 0