Document: 471 U.S. 409 105 S.Ct. 2078 85 L.Ed.2d 425 TENNESSEE, Petitionerv.Harvey J. STREET. No. 83-2143. Argued March 18, 1985. Decided May 13, Syllabus At respondent's Tennessee state-court trial for murder, the State relied on a confession that respondent made to Sheriff. Respondent testified his was coercively derived from an accomplice's written confession, claiming Sheriff read and directed say same thing. In rebuttal, called Sheriff, who denied jury after judge had instructed not admitted purpose of proving its truthfulness but rebuttal only. The prosecutor then elicited testimony emphasizing differences between confession. found guilty sentenced life imprisonment. Court Criminal Appeals reversed, holding introduction Sixth Amendment right confront witnesses, even though introduced nonhearsay rebutting testimony. Held: Respondent's rights under Confrontation Clause were violated by purposes. Pp. 413-417. (a) aspect confession—not prove what happened at murder scene when confessed—raises no concerns. Clause's fundamental role in protecting cross-examination satisfied Sheriff's presence witness stand. 413-414. (b) If been opportunity present so as enable make relevant comparison with would have impeded evaluating truth weighing reliability Such result odds mission advancing accuracy truth-determining process criminal trials. There alternatives both assured integrity trial's truth-seeking function eliminated risk jury's improper use evidence. 414-416. (c) judge's instructions limited admitting appropriate way limit evidence manner consistent Clause. P. 417. 674 S.W.2d 741 (Tenn.Cr.App.1984), reversed. Robert A. Grunow, Nashville, Tenn., petitioner. Joshua Ira Schwartz, Washington, D.C., United States amicus curiae supporting petitioner, special leave Court. Lance Rogers, Charlottesville, Va., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 We granted certiorari decide whether accomplice own statement. 2 * Ben Tester last seen alive August 26, 1981, he walked toward home Hampton, Tennessee. next day Tester's body hanging nylon rope apple tree yard. house ransacked, it appeared struggled assailants. 3 Respondent, neighbor Tester, arrested charged murder. trial, which severed trials others crime, detailed during interview Papantoniou agents Bureau Investigation September 17, 1981. According Clifford Peele decided burglarize away church. While respondent, two house, however, returned surprised intruders. threw floor declared they going "string him up." Working end, tore sheet gag mouth. watched carried out placed back pickup truck, put around neck, tied tree, pushed off tailgate.1 4 did nor participate He also maintained 17 coerced. testified, statement previously given claimed Peele's 5 testify about interview. or pressured repeat terms To corroborate this testimony, rebut claim coerced imitation, jury.2 Before received, twice informed "not statement, only." App. 292, 293. 6 Although generally Street's there some differences. For instance, portrayed active participant hanging, contained factual details confession.3 Following reading confessions. 7 referred closing argument dispute forced noted crime solely argued knew these facts because participated instructing jury, stated: 8 "The has allowed alleged be witness. 9 "I instruct you such can considered rebutable [sic ] purposes only, are consider any whatsoever." Id., 350. 10 prison. Tennessee, ruling (1984). court hearsay assertions. Nevertheless, believed left impression "that true rendition events night homicide." 745. It held, therefore, "admission [Peele's] constitutes denial [respondent's] cross-examine those witnesses against him." Ibid.4 11 certiorari. 469 929, 321, 83 258 reverse. II 12 This case is significantly different Court's previous cases Ohio v. Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597 (1980), Dutton Evans, 400 74, 91 210, 27 213 (1970), Bruton States, 391 123, 88 1620, 20 476 (1968). issues arose Roberts substantive defendants. U.S., 77, S.Ct., 2544; 79, 214. And Bruton, codefendant's inadmissible could into accompanied limiting instruction. 135-136, 1627-1628. 13 case, contrast, introduce out-of-court Thus, acknowledged, traditional rules S.W.2d, 744; accord, Fed.Rule Evid. 801(c). fact, prosecutor's critical Peele's. admitted, evaluate only comparing Papantoniou. Once introduced, compare confessions determine plausible account imitation.5 14 cross-examination, see Douglas Alabama, 380 415, 418, 1074, 1076, 934 (1965), Papantoniou's counsel doubted accurately recounted, free By challenge direct short, State's Peele, See Anderson 417 211, 219-220, 94 2253, 2260, 41 (1974). B 15 similarity like misused jury. asked infer proved hearsay; available concerns implicated. pointedly Thus question reduced whether, light competing values stake, we may rely " 'crucial assumption' jurors followed 'the them judge.' Marshall Lonberger, 459 422, 438, n. 6, 103 843, 853, 74 646 (1983) (quoting Parker Randolph, 442 62, 73, 99 2132, 2139, 60 713 (1979) (REHNQUIST, J.) ).6 16 most important piece When focus turned ability Had comparison, task handicapped very mission—to advance "the trials." supra, 89, 220. Moreover, unlike situation 134, 1626, evidence.7 do agree Appeals' suggestion edited reduce misuse "without detracting introduced." 745; 10, 10. all references deleted, more difficult imitation Indeed, approach undercut theory defense creating artificial 18 correctly notes pointed statements without But presentation option constitutionally open. After based Peele's, answered questions emphasized argument, recited whole designed attention differences, similarities 19 Finally, reject implicit required call forgo effective Because refute coercive interrogation, point. ineffective undermine introducing that, instead forcing offer immediate issue coercion,8 choice Peele.9 III legitimate, "copy" distinctive argument. context, hold Accordingly, judgment 21 Reversed. 22 POWELL took part consideration decision case. 23 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 24 I join today understanding court's instruction itself sufficient justify admission admissible essential alternative short adequately served interest. ante, 415-416. With respect need admit purposes, note created pressing confession.* Also, record contains engaged effort place prejudicial before (1965). Under circumstances raises problems. Judicial Commissioner Carter County another June 27, 1982, while county jail. witness, having neck. exhibit. These included color composition rope, source taking money wallet. Supreme application permission appeal. logically compel inference false; invented cloth. discrepancies cast doubt version interrogation. assumption able follow fully applies guaranteed issue. See, e.g., Frazier Cupp, 394 731, 735, 89 1420, 1422, 684 (1969). Severance obviously alternative; codefendants. invoke privilege self-incrimination, might helped prosecution murder; assistance parties aware located earlier point unsuccessfully sought ground "very material" imitation. 41.

Category: 0