Document: 384 U.S. 1 86 S.Ct. 1245 16 L.Ed.2d 314 James BROOKHART, Petitioner,v.Martin A. JANIS, Director of Ohio Department Hygiene and Correction. No. 657. Argued March 21, 22, 1966. Decided April 18, Gerald Messerman, Columbus, Ohio, for petitioner. Leo J. Conway, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. The petitioner, Brookhart, while serving first three consecutive sentences from one to 20 years imposed by an Court Common Pleas upon convictions forgery uttering forged instruments,1 brought this action habeas corpus in Supreme Ohio. There is no question raised about that court's jurisdiction. Petitioner charged contends here all his was constitutionally invalid because obtained a trial denied him federally guaranteed constitutional right confront witnesses against (a) permitting State introduce out-of-court alleged confession co-defendant, Mitchell,2 (b) denying cross-examine any State's who testified him.3 Master Commissioners appointed recommended be denied. They found 'petitioner although he did not plead guilty agreed state had prove prima facie case, would contest it there cross-examination witnesses.' This finding based on oral testimony but exclusively examination transcript proceedings court which petitioner convicted. accepted its Commissioners' view waiver, stating showed that: 2 'In open court, represented counsel, that, guilty, state's case or require only each essential elements crime.' St.2d 36, 40, 205 N.E.2d 911, 914. 3 Upon basis rejected petitioner's contentions ordered remanded custody. 911. We granted certiorari determine whether confronted with him. Brookhart v. 382 810, 104, 15 59. In respondent admits 4 '(I)f denial without error magnitude amount showing want prejudice cure it.' 5 concession properly made. Sixth Amendment provides criminal prosecutions, accused shall enjoy * *.' And Pointer Texas, 380 400, 406, 85 1065, 1069, 13 923, we held confrontation guarantee including 'is 'to enforced States under Fourteenth according same standards protect those personal rights federal encroachment.' Malloy Hogan, supra, 378 1, at 10, 84 (1489) 1495 (12 653).' See also Douglas Alabama, 415, 1074, 934. It follows unless actually waive these witnesses, have been two ways. place second introduced as evidence confession, made out co-defendants, Mitchell, testify therefore opportunity whatever witness very damaging statement. pass waiver. 6 waiver is, course, controlled law. presumption rights, see, e.g., Glasser United States, 315 60, 70—71, 62 457, 464—465, L.Ed. 680, effective must clearly established 'an intentional relinquishment abandonment known privilege.' Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461. 7 deciding must, course look facts allegedly support waiver.4 shown record, are completely unable agree intelligently knowingly waived whose used convict record shows following facts: arraigned January 29, 1962, lawyer, pleaded charges Two days later counsel represent Not able make bond, remained jail until 23, time before judge trial. told client signed waivers jury wanted tried court. order verify written bearing signature asked if his. said was. colloquy among judge, then took court: 8 'Mr. Ergazos (petitioner's lawyer): That(')s correct, Your Honor. 9 'The Court: Anything further? 10 Kandel: Nothing further. 11 Ergazos: thing Honor, matter case. 12 being going so will know can't taken surprise, doesn't fooled your change mind half way through really it, has contest, fairness them they can put complete proof. I might say this, adduced morning leaves defendant connection crime like reserve time. 14 That raising another putting spot spot, won't find substantial. undoubtedly Ordinarily where defendant, technically legally, effect guilt wants it. 17 correct. 18 knowing Prosecutor instead having dozen point understand contest. 19 'A (Brookhart) am pleading charge. If you stand give 21 incarcerated now last eighteen months county jail. 22 You don't get credit that. 23 For over my nerves couldn't longer, 24 Make up 25 Prima facie, interested in. 26 All right.' (Emphasis supplied.) 27 From foregoing seems clear By agreeing truncated kind trial—if could called— assume lawyer need neither offer behalf nor witnesses. shows, however, himself proceeding equivalent plea His desire such fact immediately after accurately stated 'in guilt,' personally interjected statement 'I charge.' Although expressly trial, never, time, either explicitly implicitly, guilty. emphatic guilty' negatives purpose part proving both practical Our narrows down power enter inconsistent client's expressed thereby hold cannot circumstances. true, Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 451, 564, 569, 408, may, some conditions, circumstances 'exceptional, preclude asserting claims Henry, possibly contention override guilty5 name plea—whatever label—which shut off defendant's do Since acquiesced lawyer's attempted judgment reversed further opinion. 28 ordered. 29 Reversed remanded. 30 Separate HARLAN. 31 issue straightforward does were susceptible reading given Court, concur judgment. However, me presents problems sorts. 32 First, precise nature 'rights' 'waived' wholly clear. One view, adopted entered conditional defendant. Another interpretation, certainly arguable, agreement between involve more than procedure. believe may tactical determination how run even face incomprehension explicit disapproval. decision, example, specific think, alone. contended nothing choice nature, purposes procedure instance involved significant surrender normally incident amounted almost nolo contendere. Due Process Clause protest. 33 Second, approval entry plea, arises 'prima facie' 'agreed Haskins, 38, 913. independent relevant portion reprinted, ante, pp. 5-6, finds 'did Ante, p. 7. 34 decisive understanding intention—when 'Prima in.' My substantial doubt what actual end pertinent courtroom colloquy, enhanced general unfamiliarity exist practice.* see satisfactorily resolved solely existing record. vacate remand hearing appropriate procedures freely choose determined type Failing availability courts, avenue issue. convicted breaking entering grand larceny. concurrently instruments. Mitchell indicted sentenced reformatory, reformatory called person. petition adequate notice indictment charging instruments amended attacks several other grounds. unnecessary decide additional set note. When turn resolution factual dispute duty bound See, Edwards South Carolina, 372 229, 235, 83 683, 697; Blackburn 361 199, 205, n. 5, 80 274, 279, 242. Compare Rideau Louisiana, 373 723, 726, 1417, 1419, 663. characterized 'unusual,' St.2d, 39, N.E.2d, At argument, Assistant Attorney General noted unaware procedure, practice statute rules explains follows: 'There statutory contendere felony cases, therefore, when knows successfully defend, subject penalty civil suit arising situation, recourse permitted courts certain courts. To circumvent difficulty allowed, done here, arrangement prosecution case.' Brief, 44—45, note 41.

Category: 0