Document: 412 U.S. 470 93 S.Ct. 2208 37 L.Ed.2d 82 Ronald Dale WARDIUS, Petitioner,v.State of OREGON. No. 71—6042. Argued Jan. 10, 1973. Decided June 11, Syllabus At petitioner's criminal trial, a witness' alibi evidence was struck as sanction for failure to file notice in accordance with Oregon's statutory requirement, and petitioner himself not allowed give testimony. Following conviction the appellate court, affirming, rejected his constitutional challenge state statute, which grants no discovery rights defendants. Held: Reciprocal is required by fundamental fairness it insufficient that although statute does require it, State might grant reciprocal given case. In absence fair will have an opportunity discover State's rebuttal witnesses, cannot, consistently due process requirements, be reveal defense. Pp. 473—479. Reversed remanded; see 6 Or.App. 391, 487 P.2d 1380. J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, Or., petitioner. W. Michael Gillette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. Justice, respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case involves important questions concerning right defendant forced comply 'notice-of-alibi' rule discovery. 2 Williams v. Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 26 446 (1970), we upheld constitutionality Florida's notice-of-alibi defendants intending rely on defense notify prosecution place at they claimed time question, names addresses witnesses intended call support alibi.1 so holding, however, emphasized such rules depend 'whether enjoys against State.' Id., n. S.Ct., 1896.2 presently before us, Oregon prevented from introducing any which, its face, made provision discovery.3 The thus squarely presents question left open Williams, granted certiorari this could resolved. 406 957, 92 2066, 32 343 (1972). 3 We hold Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment forbids enforcement unless are Since did provide discovery, error court below enforce petitioner, must reversed.4 4 * On May 22, 1970, indicted under Ore.Rev.Stat. § 474.020 unlawful sale narcotics. allegedly occurred previous day. after had concluded case, called one Colleen McFadden who testified night she been drive-in movie. prosecutor thereupon brought judge's attention alibi, hearing argument trial judge motion strike McFadden's testimony because failure. Petitioner then took stand attempted testify he when alleged occurred. Once again, objected again refused permit evidence. 5 convicted charged sentenced 18 months' imprisonment. appeal, Court Appeals contentions unconstitutional exclusion abridged own behalf compulsory process. 1380 (1971). unreported order, Supreme denied petition review. See App. 21. II Notice-of-alibi rules, now use large growing number States,5 based proposition ends justice best served system liberal gives both parties maximum possible amount information prepare their cases thereby reduces possibility surprise trial. See, e.g., Brennan, Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or Quest Truth?, 1963 Wash.U.L.Q. 279; American Bar Association Project Standards Discovery Procedure Before Trial 23—43 (Approved Draft 1970); Goldstein, Accused: Balance Advantage Procedure, 69 Yale L.J. 1149 (1960). growth devices salutary development increasing available parties, enhances adversary system. As recognized nothing precludes States experimenting systems broad designed achieve these goals. 'The hardly end itself; yet poker game players enjoy absolute always conceal cards until played. find ample room system, least far 'due process' concerned, (a rule) enhance search truth insuring investigate certain facts crucial determination guilt innocence.' U.S., (footnote omitted), 1896. 7 Although has little say regarding afforded, but cf. Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 10 215 (1963), speak balance forces between accused accuser. Cf. re Winship, 397 358, 361—364, 1068, 1070—1073, 25 368 (1970).6 therefore careful note 'Florida law provides State, itself carefully hedged duties requiring disclosure defendant.' 81 same cannot said law. conceded oral argument, Tr. Oral Arg. 19, defendants, and, indeed, even bills particulars.7 More significantly, Oregon, unlike requires plans refute defense.8 8 do suggest force adopt provisions. United Augenblick, 393 348, 89 528, 21 537 (1969); Cicenia Lagay, 357 504, 78 1297, 1523 (1958). But strong showing interests contrary, two-way street. may insist trials run 'search truth' while maintaining 'poker game' secrecy witnesses.9 It fundamentally unfair divulge details subjecting him hazard refutation very pieces disclosed State. 9 Indeed, neither respondent nor contests principles. Nor significant governmental lack reciprocity. Instead, chosen rest procedural point. While conceding fails contends if defense, courts read used failed notice, permitted there were, therefore, whose tended disprove alibi. introduced, argues willingness remains untested. says, effect, should litigate reciprocity issue abstract federal bypassing contest concretely judiciary.10 is, course, true final arbiters law, predict what done faced sought rights. predictability ultimately defeats argument. decide whether prosecution, deal written way knowing how subsequently interpreted. retract once provided turn out later hoped-for were granted. 11 For reason, challenged giving demanding would considerable risk. To sure, construed statutes save requirement also option reading precluding If adopted latter alternative, down requirement. only Pyrrhic victory, since having information, retracted it. Thus, scenario, though invalidated, still benefit nonreciprocal case—the result wishes avoid challenging rule. 12 faulted taking legislature word.11 stage proceedings, representation fact complied scheme. Respondent says rights.12 constitutionally compliance scheme basis totally unsubstantiated manner contrary plain language. compelled 13 erred substantial infected verdict, reversed cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 14 remanded. 15 THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs result. 16 DOUGLAS, concurring 17 106, 1908, 446, I joined Black dissent part Court's decision 'notice alibi' 'a radical dangerous departure historical guaranteed remain completely silent prove without assistance kind himself.' 108, 1909. One need go textual position. Fifth Amendment, inquisitorial practices Star Chamber firmly mind, '(n)o person . shall witness seems difficult quarrel conclusion contravenes clear mandate, believed ease burden proving increase efficiency presentation. either aid prosecution. views 'such devices' 'salutary development' increases parties. Ante, 474. development, altered Constitution. Bill Rights envision proceeding two equal so, well procedures patterned Rules Marquis Queensberry. But, Constitution awesome power indictment virtually limitless resources government investigators. Much redress advantage inheres change balance. supra, 111—114, 1911—1913 (Black, J., dissenting). 19 agree reversed, reasons stated Williams. reverse uncertainty presence take embellish old masters substantive attacked violation defendant's invasion privilege self-incrimination. found '(g)iven can fabricated, interest protecting eleventh-hour obvious legitimate.' 81, Moreover, held 'the self-incrimination violated disclose witnesses.' 1897. Florida provided: "Not less than five days receipt list, other times direct, prosecuting attorney serve upon (as particularly known attorney) proposes offer discredit cause." 104, 1908. 135.875 provides: '(1) action evidence, shall, cause, district purpose specifically places where claims offense together name residence business address each whom intends introduce good orders otherwise. '(2) section, 'alibi evidence' means was, commission offense, committed.' valid, enforced excluding supporting light our holding facially invalid, express view valid enforced. 14, id., 1896; Note, Preclusion Sanction—A Violation Constitutional Right Present Defense, L,J. 1342 suspicious benefits interferes ability secure Washington Texas, 388 87 1920, 1924, 1019 (1967); Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 344, 792, 796, 799 (1963). 1149, 1180—1192 recently pointed out, 'Oregon's code almost lacking pretrial procedures.' Kelsaw, 289, 295, 502 278, 280—281 (1972), pet. cert. pending, 72—6012. appears statements defendant, hands police. Foster, 242 Or. 101, 407 901 (1965); §§ 133.750, 133.755. supra. inherent information-gathering advantages imbalance rights, work favor. commentator noted: 'Besides greater financial staff scientifically analyze tactical advantages. First, begins investigation shortly crime committed physical more likely apt remember events. Only gathered sufficient informed charges him; into trail cold, diligent removed much field. addition timing, compel people, including cooperate. questioned within limits, arrested searched. He participate various nontestimonial identification procedures. third persons cooperate through grand juries subpoenas appearance prosecutorial investigatory boards. With probable police private areas seize tap telephone conversations. They undercover agents access vast amounts files. Finally, respect authority many people voluntarily Prosecutorial Proposed Rule 16, 85 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1018—1019 (1972) (footnotes omitted). Court, presses related object rests independent ground. Brief 2. transcript makes clear, arose sustained objection introduction proceeded make 'offer proof' order protect record appeal. cites us sustaining context, court's reach merits convincing proof judgment adequate grounds. Warden Hayden, 387 294, 297 3, 1642, 1645, 782 (1967). entirely argued 'Several weeks ago came up again—this Circuit here Judge Perry, Perry (Williams Florida) time, opinion, didn't feel allow (sic) kept this, reason given. relied somewhat my interpretation also.' 6. recent merely informing approach sort demands. Kelsaw decided suggested gave limited

Category: 0