Document: 382 U.S. 406 86 S.Ct. 459 15 L.Ed.2d 453 Dan TEHAN, Sheriff of Hamilton County, Ohio, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES ex rel. Edgar I. SHOTT, Jr. No. 52. Argued Nov. 18, 1965. Decided Jan. 19, 1966. Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, See 383 931, 925. Calvin W. Prem, Cincinnati, for petitioner. Thurman Arnold, Wshington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 In 1964 Court held that Fifth Amendment's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination 'is also protected by Fourteenth Amendment abridgment States.' Malloy v. Hogan, 378 1, 6, 84 1489, 1492, 12 653. Griffin State California, decided on April 1965, adverse comment a prosecutor or trial judge upon defendant's failure to testify in state criminal violates federal self-incrimination, because such 'cuts down making its assertion costly.' 380 609, 614, 85 1229, 1233, 14 106. The question before us now is whether rule California be given retrospective application. 2 summer 1961 respondent was brought jury an Ohio court indictment charging violations Securities Act.1 did not his own behalf, and prosecuting attorney summation commented extensively fact.2 found guilty, judgment conviction affirmed appeals, Supreme declined further review. Shott, 173 St. 542, 184 N.E.2d 213. then case this Court, claiming several constitutional errors but attacking as such. On May 13, 1963, we dismissed appeal denied certiorari, Black dissenting. Shott 373 240, 83 1295, 10 409. All avenues direct review respondent's were thus fully foreclosed more than year our decision supra, almost two years supra. 3 A few weeks after denial certiorari sought writ habeas corpus United States District Southern again alleging various trial. petition, appealed Appeals Sixth Circuit. November 10, 1964, reversed, noting 'the day oral argument appeal, Hogan * reconsidered previous rulings exception from states,' reasoning protection under includes only right refuse answer incriminating questions, refusal shall counsel prosecution.' 337 F.2d 990, 992. 4 We granted requesting parties 'to brief argue retroactivity doctrine announced *.' Tehan 381 923, 1560, 683. Since, have noted, original became final long squarely presented.3 II. 5 Linkletter Walker, 618, 1731, 601, exclusionary Mapp 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081, retroactive effect. reviewed some detail competing conceptual jurisprudential theories bearing problem judicial overturns previously established law prospective Clark's outlined history theory terms both views commentators decisions other courts which reflected those views. It would needless exercise here survey field so recently thoroughly explored.4 Rather, take starting point Linkletter's conclusion accepted today appropriate cases may interest justice make prospective,' there 'no impediment—constitutional philosophical—to use same area where exigencies situation require application,' short Constitution neither prohibits nor requires effect.' Upon premise, resolution issue 'weigh merits demerits each looking prior question, purpose effect, operation will retard operation.' U.S., at 628—629, 1737 1738.5 III. 7 Twining New Jersey 1908. 211 78, 29 14, 53 L.Ed. 97. plaintiffs error had been convicted instructed it might draw inference defendants' testify. urged propositions: '(f)irst, exemption guaranteed Federal impairment states; and, second, if guaranteed, fact impaired bar.' 91, 16. lengthy considered Privileges Immunities Clause Due Process Amendment, held, explicitly unambiguously, 'that states secured any part Constitution.' 114, S.Ct., 26. Having rejected first proposition advanced error, refrained passing second. That is, decide constitutes violation self-incrimination.6 8 reaffirmed many times through ensuing years. 1934, Cardozo cited '(t)he withdrawn accused put stand witness state.' Snyder Commonwealth Massachusetts, 291 97, 105, 54 330, 332, 78 674, 90 A.L.R. 575. Two later Chief Hughes, writing unanimous reiterated explicit statements Snyder, compulsion quoted refer processes called required testify.' Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 285, 56 461, 464, 80 682. 1937 approved Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 324, 325—326, 58 149, 82 288. Adamson People 332 46, 67 1672, 91 1903, 171 once presented much form 40 earlier Twining. trial, permitted Constitution. followed holding does accord Twining, reach violate privilege.7 Thereafter continued adhere rule, notably Knapp Schweitzer, 1958, 357 371, 374, 1302, 1304, 1393, Cohen Hurley, 1961, 366 117, 127—129, 954, 960—961, 156. 9 recapitulation, clearly demonstrates: (1) For half century, beginning 1908, adhered position self-incrimination. (2) Because position, during period never reached guarantee agaisnt trial.8 Although strong dissenting voices,9 made slightest deviation 50 Thus matters stood when (378 1492). Less later, 'in reason forbids prosecution accused's silence (380 615, 1233.) IV. 11 must reckon here, Linkletter, 636, 1740, with decisional kind Hughes pointed out operative consequences cannot justly ignored. past always erased new declaration.' Chicot County Drainage Dist. Baxter Bank, 308 60 317, 318, 329. background look purposes reliance placed doctrine, effect administration application Griffin. 1740. stressed prime Ohio,10 rejecting Wolf Colorado11 admissibility unconstitutionally seized evidence, deter lawless action police effectively enforce Fourth Amendment.' 637, 1742. There could 'say retrospective. misconduct has already occurred corrected releasing prisoners involved.' Ibid. 13 No single distinct 'purpose' can attributed constitutionally impermissible permit reasoned penalty imposed exercising privilege. cuts 1233. follows whole complex values itself represents, described reflecting 'recognition American system accusatorial, inquisitorial, essential mainstay. Governments, federal, are compelled establish guilt evidence independently freely secured, coercion prove charge mouth.'12 7—8, 1493. Insofar these 'purposes' bear present case, considerations become immediately apparent. First, basic lie behind do relate protecting innocent conviction, rather preserving integrity even guilty unless 'shoulder entire load.' Second, since Jersey, all their respected extending testimonial every defendant tried courts. noted 'all Union have, time time, varying form, uniform meaning, included Constitutions, except Iowa, existing law.' 92, Wigmore Evidence § 2252 (McNaughton rev. 1961). variations existed among respective guarantees 57 between go And finally, insofar strict reflects Constitution's concern represented 'our respect inviolability human personality individual private enclave he lead life,"13 impingement resulting State's variant standard remedied. As rights ruptured privacy restored.' Mapp, therefore, deal rests quite different order underlying recent applied retroactively. determination truth, self-evident deny lawyer's help technical intricacies full opportunity poor impede infect proceeding clear danger convicting innocent. Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 792, 799; Doughty Maxwell, 376 202, 702, 650; Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 891; Eskridge Washington Board Prison Terms & Paroles, 214, 1061, 1269. surely said wrongful coerced confession. Jackson Denno, 368, 1774, 908, A.L.R.3d 1205; McNerlin 575, 1933, 1041; Reck Pate, 433, 1541, 948. By contrast, adjunct ascertainment truth. privilege, like stands values—values society let alone. To recognize no undiluted respect. 16 doubt States' doubted they relied utmost good faith. amended constitutions expressly testify, 1912,14 1934.15 At least four permitting comment.16 17 Moreover, invited over longer durign repeatedly unquestioned legitimacy Colorado, 338 25, 69 1359, 93 1782, important factor militating Mapp. During 12-year Colorado aware illegal seizure officers violated Constitution.17 elapsed Malloy, told way Constitution.18 18 last Mapp.' 1741. create stresses concentrated great created impact themselves adopted apparently 24 number.19 no-comment six number.20 But very grave indeed. tangible raise issues offered. fairly assumed Mexico, stand—in accordance interpreted 19 Empirical statistics available, experience suggests indulging hyperbole amicus curiae tells 'Prior Court's Griffin, literally thousands stand. Those reaping greatest benefit compelling (those) sentences Their offer likelihood successful retrial many, most, instances, witnesses available.' nothing suggest what true Ohio. void person who devastating need elaboration. V. 20 proceeded premise 'we apply, prohibited applying retrospectively.' 629, 1738. After consideration factors, able say 21 vacated remanded Circuit claims contained petition corpus, considered. ordered. 22 Judgment directions. 23 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS joins, dissents substantially reasons stated 640, 1743. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took case. 25 FORTAS Rev. Code §§ 1707.01—1707.45. Since 1912 provision Article I, provides, part, follows: 'No compelled, himself; subject counsel.' Section 2945.43 Revised contains wording. unanimously controlling principles discussed retroactively States. re Gaines, 63 Cal.2d 234, 45 Cal.Rptr. 865, 404 P.2d 473; Pinch St.2d 212, 210 883. one 'pure prospectivity.' reverse Griffin's conviction. Compare England Louisiana Medical Examiners, 375 411, 440. Nor applicability still pending announced. Cf. O'Connor 286, 445. December precise rendered, availability exhausted, finally denied, 622—628, 1737, 601. commentary suggested alternative approach problem, see Mishkin, Term—Foreward: High Great Writ, Time Law, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 56. 'We discussion done bar infringement intend, however, lend countenance truth assumption. adopting complained deemed consistent itself, it. authorities conflict. pass conflict, because, given, think Adamson, 50, n. 1674, arisen courts, statute prohibiting Stat. 30, amended, U.S.C. 3481; Bruno States, 287, 198, 257; Wilson 149 60, 765, 37 650. system, matter controlled statute. 7, See, e.g., Black's historic 68, 1683. 1081. 1782. These catalogued Goldberg's Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 52, 1594, 678, 653; 'The 'registers advance development liberty—'one landmarks man's struggle himself civilized." Ullmann 350 422, 426, 497, 500, 511 (53 A.L.R.2d 1008). (The quotation Griswold, Today (1955), 7.) fundamental most noble aspirations: unwillingness suspected crime cruel trilemma self-accusation, perjury contempt; preference accusatorial inquisitorial justice; fear self-incriminating elicited inhumane treatment abuses; sense fair play dictates 'a state-individual balance requiring government leave alone until cause shown disturbing him contest load,' Wigmore, rev., 1961), 317; life,' Grunewald, Cir., 233 556, 581—582 (Frank, J., dissenting), rev'd 353 391, 77 963, 931 (62 1344); distrust self-deprecatory statements; realization while sometimes shelter guilty,' often innocent.' Quinn 349 155, 162, 75 668, 673, 99 964 (51 1157.)' 55, 1597. '(T)he represents aspirations. 'an expression moral striving community. reflection common conscience 9, quoting 73. why regarded fabric, despite lawyers up minds just supposed intended protect.' Kalven, Invoking Amendment—Some Legal Impractical Considerations, Bull. Atomic Sci. 181, 182.' 56, 5, 2, Constitution, Art. 13. Heno, 119 Conn. 29, 174 A. 94 696; Ferguson, 226 Iowa 361, 372—373, 283 N.W. 917, 923; Corby, 28 N.J. 106, 145 A.2d 289; Sandoval, 59 N.M. 85, 279 850. unequivocally determined virtue unreasonable searches seizures officers. security one's arbitrary intrusion implicit concept ordered liberty' enforceable Clause.' 27—28, 1361. example, Scott 364 471, 245, 222, where, late 1960, member expressed dissent dismissal challenging constitutionality rule. Elkins 206, 224—225, 1437, 1447, 1669 (Appendix). notes 15, 16,

Category: 0