Document: 464 U.S. 114 104 S.Ct. 453 78 L.Ed.2d 267 Ruth RUSHEN, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al.v.Johnny SPAIN. No. 82-2083. Dec. 12, 1983. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent was one six inmates involved in a 1971 San Quentin prison escape that resulted the death three prisoners and corrections officers. The State jointly tried respondent five other on numerous charges, including murder, conspiracy, assault. prosecution attempted to show Black Panther Party had organized attempt link conspiracy through his membership party. Respondent's defense state police breakout ambushed escapees eliminate an important faction Party. 2 During voir dire, court admonished prospective jurors reveal their associations, if any, with crimes violence attitudes toward radical groups, Panthers. Patricia Fagan, who became juror, testified at dire she no personal knowledge violent crimes—as witness, victim, or otherwise—and did not associate any form violence. However, course 17-month long trial, evidence introduced crime, unrelated those issue respondent's which juror Fagan some knowledge. A witness identified named Pratt as informant alleged plot. sought impeach this by introducing custody for 1968 murder Santa Monica woman during entire period issue. This triggered Fagan's recollection childhood friend, been convicted killing. 3 Upon hearing about Pratt, twice went trial judge's chambers tell him her acquaintance Pratt's victim. She told feared might cry were explored further trial. judge asked each occasion whether disposition case would be affected. assured it not. concerned matter probably mentioned again. He made record either conversation, he inform defendants counsel them. 4 At close jury found guilty two counts escape, acquitted remaining charges. also assault, insufficient support sentenced life imprisonment. 5 Counsel subsequently learned ex parte communications between moved new motion, remembered friend's subsequent affect ability impartially innocence guilt. admitted telling personally knew but denied making disparaging remarks concluded "lacked significance" suffered prejudice therefrom. See App. C Pet. Cert. 22. Accordingly, motion 6 Court Appeal affirmed conviction. It communication federal constitutional error harmless "beyond reasonable doubt" because jury's deliberations, whole, unbiased. Id., 28-35. Supreme review. 7 then petitioned writ habeas corpus District Court. issued writ, ruling violated both right present all critical stages proceedings represented counsel. Furthermore, held automatic reversal necessary absence contemporaneous intelligent application standard impossible. Alternatively, post-trial could establish beyond doubt. Thus, conviction vacated court's failure hold about, make of, communication. Appeals Ninth Circuit basis unrecorded can never error.1 8 We emphatically disagree. Our cases recognize presence are fundamental rights criminal defendant.2 "At same time without detracting from importance [these rights], we have implicitly recognized necessity preserving society's interest administration justice. Cases involving [such constitutional] deprivations [therefore] subject general rule remedies should tailored injury . unnecessarily infringe competing interests." United States v. Morrison, 449 361, 364, 101 665, 667, 66 564 (1981); see Rogers States, 422 35, 38-40, 95 2091, 2094-2095, 45 (1975). In spirit, previously noted Constitution "does require every has placed potentially compromising situation [because] is virtually impossible shield contact influence theoretically vote." Smith Phillips, 455 209, 217, 102 940, 946, 71 (1982). There scarcely lengthy more does speak something, relates comfort aspect lower courts' conclusion ignores these day-to-day realities courtroom undermines justice.3 9 say serious concern may overturn resulting such communications. When generally disclose parties.4 prejudicial effect do so, however, normally determined hearing. adequacy remedy solely its mitigate error, occurred. See, e.g., supra, U.S., 365, S.Ct., 668; 40, 2095. Post-trial hearings adequately task. 218-219, n. 8, 946-947 8; Remmer 347 227, 230, 74 450, 451, 98 654 (1954). 10 final decision law. Chapman California, 386 18, 20-21, 87 824, 826, 17 705 (1967). Nevertheless, factual findings arising out entitled presumption correctness. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sumner Mata, 539, 764, 722 (1981). substance impartiality questions historical fact presumption. they must determined, first instance, courts deferred to, "convincing evidence" contrary, courts. Marshall Lonberger, --- ----, 103 843, 850, 646 (1983). Here, state's appellate biased. finding "fact"—on question far better position than answer—deserves "high measure deference," 591, 598, 1303, 1307, 480 (1982), set aside only "lack[s] even 'fair support' record." 850. recording will rarely deprive "even 'fai[r] suppor[t]' id., 11 created adequate respondent. related connected offenses testify Juror willfully concealed association crime repeatedly that, upon recollection, incident impartiality.5 turned most natural source information—the information failed recall dire. Their innocuous. They discuss controversy law applicable case. simply there cause concern. convincing biased undisclosed recollection. presumptively correct therefore doubt.6 12 grant leave proceed forma pauperis petition certiorari, vacate judgment Appeals, remand consistent opinion. 13 so ordered. 14 Justice BRENNAN dissents summary disposition. certiorari oral argument. 15 STEVENS, concurring judgment. 16 several challenging parte, conversations juror; sua sponte parties occurrence conversations. contended, below held, thereby deprived liberty due process corpus. Assuming stage effective assistance counsel, reverses ground impartial fair hence Most my colleagues "emphatically disagree"1 suggestion simple test used determine makes verdict constitutionally infirm. I believe majority dissent gloss over legal issues presented 18 concludes duty find doubt impartial. Ante, 121. MARSHALL persuasively shown, concerning impartiality. That forecloses reliance enunciated (1967),2 granted. 19 order evaluate significance deprivation, essential correctly identified.3 deprivation characterized ways: (1) denial defendant's (2) (3) jury.4 If established deprivations, sustained burden showing unfairness issuance 20 before us, raise claim petition, choosing contend biased, fact. B 25. majority, passes concluding assumed error. 21 think quite clear mere conversation constitute right. interaction nor reporter transcribe potential bias irrelevant dispute content conversations; testimony elicited affords conviction, answering contentions well. Moreover, extent partiality deemed Court, contention inadequate facts relevant assessing event, whatever harbored against inference result judge, suggesting exacerbated harbored. external source.5 22 actions dimension, core notice opportunity heard meaningful manner notify raising juror's partiality. essence, mid-trial option existed point replacing alternate. exists, defendant naturally hearing, existence stem To argue reason backwards. Naturally since incidents violation incidental unless predicate 23 While promptly notified render void. failing grasp provide grounds imputed bias. Under circumstances, understandable, given nature expressed concerns explicitly generalization raised Party—Fagan's lose composure friend detail—and introduced. good faith question, reasonableness under circumstances plainly determining fundamentally unfair rendered nullity. provided full discover friend. Three months devoted selection, while counsel's brief, "knowledge" "crimes [of] violence" "witness, [or] otherwise," "associate[d] [her] own mind," 16, elicit later revealed consequence shortcoming mechanism available uncovering information. Finally, ultimately information, apparently discovered established. light factors, conclude sustain demonstrating integrity obtained renders void valid judgment.6 24 By analyze real procedural presents, instead casually assuming labels apt describe endorses analysis actual rights. Some rights, basic infraction treated opinion right.7 25 Court's reasoning applying purpose affording guard risk jury, impartial, materialized harmless.8 applied, perhaps short totally denying whatsoever, Fidelity Sixth Amendment precedent demands rejected. 26 respondent, attaching label obligatory presumed violations. extraordinary prepared essence doubt.9 undisputed law— need decide—but surely impartiality, neither erase it. 27 summary, although agree carried establishing unfair, cannot subscribe assumption record, Nor conundrum making. concur join MARSHALL, dissenting. 29 Without benefit briefing argument, today Circuit, affirming Because rulings correct, deserve careful consideration accorded case, dissent. 30 * 1971, George Jackson, leader Party, along Prison. plot detected, and, ensuing melee, guards killed. co-defendants, whom allegedly plan, charges One principal disputed degree Jackson assisted members "on outside" planning executing attempt. effort assemble capable controversial questions, questioned regarding Panthers general. venire, crime; accepted juror. 31 After called Louis Tackwood, various enforcement officers plotted encourage escape. Allegedly, hoped induce group try rescue whereupon ambush kill conspirators. Tackwood Elmer "Geronimo" group, acting informant. Tackwood's testimony, incarcerated murder. Carolyn Olson, friends,1 brutally murdered Party.2 just discussed prosecutor 32 informed suspicions. prior again courtroom. indicated unlikely murderer. deliberations affected what learned, not.3 put mind. 33 evening, mother ascertained indeed person killing Olson. next morning, chambers, findings, reiterated fear break down court. As described "I didn't how significant, feel towards said accept felt Mr. testify, very unsettled that."4 recollected meeting, lawyers delve into responded "something effect, 'O.K., problem, then,' meaning adverse me, played part evaluation case."5 34 him. Sometime later, "mention[ed] [had been] friend," but, "to best recollection," amongst jurors.6 35 aspects development germane matters judge. First, Monday following meetings, "the Los Angeles." Second, after meetings introduce Leaders party witnesses, closing argued helped smuggle weapons ammunition implied [respondent's] he, too, 'involved in' plan 'working with' Jackson."7 36 days deliberation, counts. Two Respondent, member escape.8 37 third contacts home interviewed discussions On conducted motion. giving account discussing witness. outset examination "it suggested your oath office true, you face possible that."9 incriminate herself lawyer advise questioning.10 formally waived attorney,11 proceeded. 38 examination, attorney points point, successfully objected inquiry mental processes reached proscribed Rule Evidence 1150.12 accordingly limited occurred known, believed, trial.13 None 39 events issue, ruled demonstrate prejudiced contacts14 Appeal, divided opinion, secret gave rise error,15 harmless. 40 thorough thoughtful presented, writ. agreed conduct ruled, alternative, precluded harmless-error review doubt.16 brief memorandum affirmed. reasoned "[i]n district condition apply intelligently test."17 II 41 aptly observed "arises confluence streams doctrine, flowing proceedings, attorney."18 42 dispute. "In guarantees criminally accused panel 'indifferent' jurors." Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 722, 81 1639, 1642, 751 (1961); Turner Louisiana, 379 466, 471-473, 85 546, 548-550, 424 (1965). "It now where frustrate fairness Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, [54 330, L.Ed. 674 (1934)]. ." Faretta 806, 819 15, 2525, 2533 562 "The provides shall enjoy 'to Assistance defense.' right, our system justice, meant assure adversary process. responsive proved claims governmental ineffective." (1981) (citations omitted); Herring New York, 853, 857, 2550, 2552, 593 (1975) (acknowledging applicability principles proceedings). 43 What links doctrines instant ceases work effectively when event significantly weigh him.19 Deprived unable take measures ascertain (and, request replacement alternate) organize presentation offset little characterizes resultant "right present," abridgement jury. bears remain "indifferent" withheld machine rely ensure breaks down. 44 undeniable bore least acknowledged mid-trial, organization belonged conspired commit accused. sufficiently poignant liable impact recently revived memories enormous.20 Preservation protections inherent come attention. III dispose recognized, relief harm abridgment pointed out, kinds injuries assessed case: loss mitigate, adjust alteration perspective jurors. A. 46 considered observes, show, doubt, "Fagan prejudiced."21 argues "[t]his 'fact'—on 'high deference,' 'lack[s] "fair support" record.' " 120 (citation omitted). 47 assume, sake implying fact, rather mixed fact.22 Appeal's fairly supported obliged defer finding. 459 422, 432-435, reasons outlined crucial record."23 48 expressly relied unimpaired. withstand scrutiny. 49 First. emphasized "Pratt figures, most, tangentially case."24 true pertaining bearing guilt innocence. But participation stake appeal. memory Olson Panther. accurately analyzed rejuvenation recollection: 50 "From perspective, combination Ms. knowledge, emotional her, leadership role devastating implications. series key role, defendant, though know it, being judged greatly distressed hands member—a shown Extraordinary insight required perceive [respondent] experience, permitted jurors' assessments innocence."25 51 For himself figure prominently "no bias." 52 Second. "Fagan's disclaimers case."26 substantiating reference, adverted "[a]t 'any violence.' "27 Such clearly killed Panther—a inconsistent statement dire—affected 53 Next, "[d]uring replied not."28 compelling discount probative value representations importantly, statements consist promises came deliberate recollection.29 Those exposed Angeles extensive activities member, prosecutor, common accomplices joint indicate declarations (the precise remembers) unimpaired assertions—to explore confidence look unjaundiced eyes. sum, unaffected Olson's 54 reference post-conviction acknowledged, constraints imposed 1150 scope prevented testifying remained Indeed, few arguably bear reaching verdict30 "may well inadmissible," declined them.31 pertained mind met murder.32 infirmity meetings: pertains disinterestedness moments indicates nothing verdict. undercut aware admission impaired liability. itself seems lack gleaned 55 Third. noted, finally, addition, objective results particular, unbiased."33 duration carefully evaluated evidence, prejudice, engaged rush verdict" deliberations—the acquittal defendants, assault count impartial.34 response foregoing line argument compelling: 56 "Though shows precisely opposite inference. [Respondent] connected, direct acts Quentin, All substantive crimes. pattern convictions acquittals, viewed dangers posed exposure reaction linking certainly raises possibility known communicated influenced verdicts."35 57 conclusion, none significant contrast, impairment considerable. founded theory vicarious liability; joined ongoing prison. closely balanced.36 tending passing severe. view paucity severity danger bias, properly record. 58 second committed sensitivities jury.37 acted ways (other seeking alternate juror) minimize memory. requested instruction surrounding death. decided prominent Either requests outcome 59 steps. pertinent conclude, sort described. erred determination. IV 60 conscientiously applied embodied 2254(d). Examination papers submitted us reveals conclusions judges manifestly correct. summarily below. 61 62 BLACKMUN, 63 deny am persuaded wrong corpus, presents worthy plenary 64 discussion generated illustrates, disregarded guidance (1981), involve confused likely recur often. 65 "affirmed error," proposition disagree[s]". 117. interpretation Appeals' possible, compelled. follows: contemporary ex-parte took place. test. [87 827, 705] (1966). explanation referred inadequacy speculation Sumner, 551 [101 771]. conceded silent 4.5. 67 pages appendix certain errors, after-the-fact determination here reversal. examined harmlessness reinforced able vote impartially. read opinions, something 68 yet barred federalism carrying statutory 2254(d) conclusive inappropriate Nothing foreclosed special circumstances. that: 69 "in instances biases, leaving subjected unjust procedures miscarriage turn facts, extreme situations justify examples include revelation employee prosecuting agency, relative participants transaction, somehow transaction. Whether 'no bias,' allow stand circumstances." 222, 948. added, footnote: 70 exceptional 'implied bias' deterred 2254(d), proceeding 'a merits correct.' n., 948, 1. Each refers connection participant undisclosed. organization, included "extreme situations" list. proving error.* 72 Inasmuch primarily involves settled highly unusual continue unnecessary. close, reading already suggests inclined "rap knuckles" efforts perform duties warranted. innocent forced shackled chained. Neither Given remains resolved remand. Petitioner conceded, court, 29-31. acknowledge approached dimension us. deciding, implicated STEVENS post, 126 (STEVENS, J., judgment). Had underlying approach merit consideration. alleging violations challenge. These analysis, see, 364-365, 667-668, (right counsel); 114-118, 335-336, (1934) presence), nature, Gideon Wainright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963). refused, troublesome these, out-of-court action contended because, prosecutor's job investigator. brought parties' attention until sometime rendered. relying proper impute violation. 219, 947. misconduct influence, less Smith. infra, 120-121. (although Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. additional instructions notification not); Shields 273 583, 588-589, 478, 479, 787 (1927) (undisclosed violates non-constitutionally based rules orderly procedure); Fillippon Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 76, 81, 435, 436, 853 (1919) (same). specific decide extraneous improperly Fed.R.Evid. 606(b); 217 7, 218-219 946 8. arrived. Mattox 146 140, 50, 917 (1892). refused consider arriving doubt." 33. sensitive evidence. 67-78. Although MARSHALL's purportedly agrees record," 143, critique proves otherwise. concedes, albeit grudgingly, circumstance probative. 143-148. dissent, like below, defective depends indifference [in each] considerable." ibid. bases "lack record" credibility 29, fails adhere commands statute. determinations inferences drawn binding ---- - 850-851. requires disagree rejecting determinations. "lac[k] satisfied Ibid. holding necessarily follows correctness findings. Compare: "We disagree." 117 (footnote with: "To means imply freely engage 'aspect[s] trial,' Post, 139, 19. often stated, "before harmless, declare belief 24, 828, explained, fungible. "There four types. frequently encountered attaches class includes sufficient import particular appeal, still fresh retrial conducted. 705]; Harrington 395 250, 254 [89 1726, 1728, 284]. category errors enough appeal kind collateral attack Stone Powell, 428 465 [96 3037, 1067]. fourth infect validity itself, obtained." Rose Lundy, 509, 543-544, 1198, 1216, dissenting). obtain incarceration pursuant judgment, prisoner persuade infected led lies lawless imprisonment them merely erroneous void." Fay Noia, 391, 423, 822, 840, 837 [must] injustice seeks aside, demonstrable reality." Adams rel. McCann, 317 269, 281, 236, 242, 268 (1942). confront law, stated arose "at attorney." 22-23. Instead analyzing "that camera [his] present." 23. proceeded ill-defined "constitutional error" doing essentially ignored assumed, allocated proof unfortunate mode regrettably repeated understand largely function petitioner's apparent concession An is, amorphous meaningless actually label. illusory concession: assume disclosed secured B. 27. different recognizing inherently speculative doubts easily remedied rationale 842 (1967) ("[P]articular types indeterminate reasonably harmless.") (Harlan, This, substance, held. 827 (1967); 42-44, 836-837 (Stewart, result); dissenting); Wainwright, (1963); Glasser 315 60, 457, 467, 86 680 (1942) ("The too absolute indulge nice calculations amount denial."); Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 1019, 82 1461 (1938); Powell Alabama, 287 45, 55, 77 158 (1932); also, Cuyler Sullivan, 446 349-50, 100 1708, 1718-1719, 333 (1980); Geders 425 80, 96 1330, 592 (1976); 863, 2555, pre-trial Coleman 399 1, 90 1999, 387 (1970), White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 193 (1963) (per curiam), permits consists ordinarily inadmissible compare Henry, 447 264, 274-275 13, 2183, 2189 115 (1980) Massiah 377 201, 84 1199, 246 (1964), Moore Illinois, 434 220, (1977). pretrial unsuccessful government agents dismissal indictment Morrison observe managed incriminating otherwise cooperate discharge attorney, suppress tainted susceptible "certain" citing identifying error—a exception Chapman. 668. appropriate respect purported semantics. rooted Confrontation Clause. Illinois Allen, 397 337, 338, 1057, 1058, 353 (1969). access examining accusers, taint firmly convinced 116, 336, ("[C]onstitutional privileges immunities conferred room wrought denial.") Even de minimus afford relief. element present. Clause analysis. 335-336 (1934). uses phrase "as whole" 120,121. Unless Panther, fail Hence, focusing directly thoughts prejudiced. Surely, jurors, Tumey Ohio, 510, 437, 749 (1927). descriptions intimacy relationship varied somewhat. discrepancies "Patricia age seven 'good,' 'close,' 'best' cared daughter daily attending U.C.L.A. 1962. time, women visited socially. husband." People Spain, 1/Crim. 16126 (Calif.Ct.App. July 1980), reprinted (hereafter C) 14-15. findings—as pertain fact—were 851, (1983); 592-593, 1304, (1982) curiam). killing, [Fagan], husband playing tennis people demanded money, ordered lie down, shot them." C, 15; Transcript Post-Conviction Hearing (Tr.) 23958. preliminary description encounter discussed. accounts, maintained unaffected. credited 19-20, bound assessment conflicting note supra. Tr. 23920. Affidavit Sept. 27, 1976, Record (R.) 5481-5482; 19-20. R. 5482; 21. 10. anyone; rather, Bingham murders probable consequences conspiracy. thus strength stressing Jackson's 23944. 23944-23945. 23945. Cal.Evid.Code Ann. 1150(a) (West 1966) provides: "Upon verdict, admissible received made, conduct, conditions, occurring, within room, character improperly. No statement, condition, influencing assent determined." distinction jurisdictions. 149, 53, states [of death] guilt." 116. Later, much "repeatedly impartiality." transcript care prevent motivations induced guilty. 23965-23971. His (at most) 23919-23920. corroborated affidavit at133-134, 5. keep promise "implicit" Spain Rushen, 543 F.Supp. 757, 771 (ND Calif.1982), affirmance order, 701 F.2d 186 (CA9 1983). somewhat ambiguous demonstrated points, seemed vouch shown. 23, 4, 26-27. novo. 768-777. Rushen 1983), 7. "an error." Though altogether "this case" strongly intended entailed great truly lest broadly, clarify decision, reverse "[t]he relies "[t]here trial." 118. Whatever thinks accuracy majority's frequency pair impinged impartiality—i.e., assess obligation depend talk "personal comfort." "aspect[s] trial," her—a distinguishes Contrary ante, 119, 3, "troublesome" Smith, pursue career enforcement; nevertheless satisfy unbiased seated. act way outlook began. vulnerable contested flatly "unsettled" recollections, trial—namely, among inside outside engineer readily distinguishable well: contrast learn threatened convicted. Again case—the 138-140 —were cases, infra. 28. premise opinion—namely, determination, phrased doubt," prejudiced, tantamount ultimate preeminently capacity trials substantially undercut. Sensitivity problems explains place quotation marks "fact." 120; *, (O'CONNOR, concurring) (In "exceptional situations," cast considerable doctrine "implied bias" doing, "need 2254(d)."). status complex Insofar irresponsible resolve parties. notes, resemblance buttress 118-119, 3. incorrect. 224, 949 (MARSHALL, emphasized, control above, occurring greater 20, posture affirmatively prove Concluding violation" issued. 221, transpired Fagan. 138-141. prove, language define relevance 24; 35. 773. 30-31. 31-32. worth noting powerful wanting Her sudden untrue responses impression likely, recalled earlier lapse declaration mistrial work. self-knowledge courage examine her. beliefs likelihood grew up Watts area "black out" confronted probability psychiatric charged. 23966, 23968. 23957, 23977-23978. discussion, appellants present, associated 'worthwhile activities' breakfast program school children party." 32. citation appears remark, referring: "My answers [respondent's counsel's] [at dire] My Area. Therefore, worthwhile activities." 5482. context principally honesty (and designed protect office). plotting App.C, 33-35. 776. From analogous survey community venire prevailing residents arise Surely mischaracterized 117-118, 2, petitioner violated. assumption, centered harmed framework cast, STEVENS' me narrow.

Category: 0