Legal Document

483 U.S. 756 107 S.Ct. 3102 97 L.Ed.2d 618 James GREER, Warden, Petitionerv.Charles "Chuck" MILLER No. 85-2064. Argued April 27, 1987. Decided June 26, Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, See 1056, 108 30. Syllabus Respondent and two other men (including Randy Williams) were charged with kidnaping, robbery, murder. Williams entered into a plea agreement testified at respondent's separate Illinois court trial that each of the participated in crime shot victim. on direct examination he had taken no part crime, but come to him after murder was committed, seeking his advice. At beginning cross-examination, prosecutor asked him: "Why didn't you tell this story anybody when got arrested?" Defense counsel immediately objected and, out jury's hearing, requested mistrial ground prosecutor's question violated right remain silent arrest. The judge denied motion, sustained objection instructed jury "ignore [the] question, for time being." did not pursue issue further, nor mention it during closing argument. judge's instructions included caution "disregard questions . which objections sustained." convicted, Appellate Court reversed conviction. rejected State's argument if about postarrest silence prohibited by Doyle v. Ohio, 426 610, 96 2240, 49 91, error harmless under standards Chapman California, 386 18, 87 824, 17 705. Supreme reversed, holding improper require reversal conviction circumstances case. then sought habeas corpus relief Federal District Court, petition. Appeals finding because respondent received Miranda warnings arrest, constitutional fair trial. further held beyond reasonable doubt Chapman. Held: concerning does Pp. 761-767. (a) No violation occurred permitting use impeachment purposes defendant's arrest receiving warnings, contain an implicit assurance will carry penalty, violates Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Here, "implicit assurance" warnings. However, permit inquiry forbids. Instead, explicitly only touched upon silence. questioning or respect occurred, specifically advised should disregard any sustained. allowed undertake on, permitted call attention to, 761-765. (b) misconduct attempting violate rule so infect unfairness as make resulting denial due process. Court's finding, Chapman, indicates would find process facts here. sequence events—a single immediate objection, curative instructions—clearly rights. Moreover, determination properly admitted evidence sufficient prove guilt supports conclusion there violation. 765-767. 789 F.2d 438, remanded. POWELL, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed concurring judgment, post, p. ----. BRENNAN, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL BLACKMUN, joined, Mark L. Rotert, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Gary R. Peterson, Springfield, respondent. Justice POWELL Court. 1 before us is whether criminal requires 2 * In 1980, Neil Gorsuch kidnaped, robbed, murdered leaving bar Jacksonville, Illinois. Three crimes: Williams, Clarence Armstrong, respondent, Charles Miller. confessed, later most charges against dropped return testimony trials Armstrong 3 Miller's trial, he, brother, met tavern evening February 8. offered victim ride back hotel, four left together 1:30 a.m. After Williams' brother off, began beating seat car. According testimony, group stopped briefly parents' home pick up shotgun, drove trailer where Miller staying. joined group, they traveled bridge isolated road. stated once three head shotgun. 4 took stand own behalf told different story. On committed confessed beaten robbed Gorsuch, killed avoid being identified perpetrators. 5 cross-examination follows: 6 "Q: Mr. Miller, how old are you? 7 "A: 23. 8 Why App. 31. 9 objected. Out hearing jury, lawyer Id., 32. presentation evidence, defense renew request instruction question. 47. convicted murder, aggravated kidnapping, sentenced 80 years prison. 10 appeal State argued decision 91 (1976), 705 (1967).1 conviction, concluding "was overwhelming preclude all doubts effect comment." 104 Ill.App.3d 57, 61, 59 Ill.Dec. 864, 857-858, 432 N.E.2d 650, 653-654 (4th Dist.1982). disagreed reinstated court's decision. Ill.2d 385, 70 849, 450 322 (1983). noted comment made course lengthy been establish doubt. 396, 854, N.E.2d, 327. It therefore 11 petition writ Central petition, "no possibility post-arrest could have contributed conviction." Pet. Cert. C-3. A divided panel Seventh Circuit decision, United States ex rel. Greer, 772 293 (1985), full reargument en banc. 438 (1986). banc found Miranda2 offenses "[t]he reference trial." F.2d, 442. supra, overwhelming, implausible, cautionary insufficient cure error." 447. judges dissented, harmless-error standard, "this fifteen-second colloquy, alleviated sustaining instructing ignore threshold sustained, affect verdict." 448 (Cummings, Wood Coffey, dissenting) (footnotes omitted; record omitted). Judge Easterbrook also dissented. view, standard too stringent be applied case number reasons: prophylactic rather than innocence-protecting; presented collateral, direct, review; cured more fully trial; viewed prosecutorial rendered fundamentally unfair. 448-457. 12 We granted certiorari review Appeals' 479 983, 568, 93 573 (1986).3 disagree now reverse. II 13 starting point our analysis (1976). petitioners arrested selling marijuana. They given statements their involvement crime. contended framed government informant. As repeatedly why, innocent, give explanation proffered police arrest.4 counsel's timely line overruled. Also over objections, argue petitioners' jury. U.S., 613-615, n. 5, S.Ct., 2242-2243 5. review, "compel[led] rejection" contention such proper means impeachment. 617, 2244. may particularly probative guilt. "that penalty," 618, 2245, " 'it comport prosecution [the defendant's] insist speak time, need do, unfavorable inference might drawn truth testimony,' id., 619, 2245 (quoting Hale, 422 171, 182-183, 95 2133, 2139, 45 99 (1975) (WHITE, judgment)). Accordingly, "the silence, Amendment." 2245. 14 This has subsequent cases. These holdings confirm "Doyle rests 'the fundamental implicitly assuring suspect used using impeach subsequently trial.' Wainwright Greenfield, 474 284, 291, 106 634, 639, 88 623 (1986) South Dakota Neville, 459 553, 565, 103 916, 923, 74 748 (1983)). Thus, "absen[t] sort affirmative assurances embodied warnings," Constitution prohibit Fletcher Weir, 455 603, 607, 102 1309, 1312, 71 490 (1982). Jenkins Anderson, 447 231, 240, 100 2124, 2130, 65 86 (1980) ("[N]o governmental action induced defendant] arrest") (emphasis added); Anderson Charles, 404, 408, 2180, 2182, 222 (cross-examination respecting inconsistent "makes unfair defendant who voluntarily speaks silent"). 15 There prerequisite met. But bars purposes" added). silence.' Ibid. 2139 judgment)) significant cases Doyle, specific post-Miranda 233-234, 2126-2127 (extended reference); 405-406, 2180-2181 (questioning); 603-604, 1310 564, 922 (admission refusal take blood-alcohol test); 285, 287, 635, 636 (closing argument). 16 contrast these cases, sustained.5 Unlike "allowed on," "permit[ted] to," 10, 10. fact submitted from draw permissible inference, thus case.6 III Although constitute violation, remains attempted asking presence recognized "so infec[t] process." Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 643, 94 1868, 1871, 40 431 (1974). To must 'of significance result Bagley, 473 667, 676, 105 3375, 3380, 481 (1985) Agurs, 427 97, 108, 2392, 2399, 342 (1976)). 18 applying (1967), Ill.2d, Ill.Dec., convinced case.7 When contends unfair, important "as initial matter place th[e] remar[k] context." Darden Wainwright, 477 168, 179, 2464, 2471, 144 1869 (determining "remarks, context entire sufficiently prejudicial rights"). events case—a instructions8—clearly doubt," 327, result.9 IV 19 reverse judgment remand proceedings consistent opinion. 20 ordered. 21 judgment. 22 Having dissented 620-635, 2246-2252, I can readily understand why want overrule prohibits clearly defined rule. Whether sustains impermissible refer her arguments, relevant inquiry, deciding play role promise —as understood —that him. 23 I, therefore, agree federal concluded called reasons Appeals, think serious enough support 445-447 (CA7 1986) (en banc). Were here appeal, vote 24 Nonetheless, concur believe petition—whether apply reviewing errors —should answered affirmative. Rose Lundy, 509, 1198, 379 (1982), least types alleged errors. 25 "The one frequently encountered claim attaches label set disclose right. second class includes violations import particular justify even still fresh retrial promptly conducted. [87 827, 705]; Harrington 395 250, 254 [89 1726, 1728, 284]. third category do reveal kind accused collateral attack final See, e.g., Stone Powell, 428 465 [96 3037, 1067]. fourth those validity underlying itself, integrity obtained." 543-544, 1216 (dissenting opinion) (footnote 26 my cannot deemed typically fall within categories. demonstrate But, typical attacks, today's, convictions whenever bear heavy burden proving hand, extraordinary egregious, combined incidents misconduct, event, afforded.* 27 sum, although applies here, considered review. rise unless 28 whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 29 Today holds attempt credibility without thereby violating arrives surprising confusing remarkable radically departs settled practice lower courts, founded conceded below raised 30 Until today, common understanding "our Ohio [was it] shields warnings." 296, 641, (REHNQUIST, result) able simply showing 'call[ed] to' (citation strict; virtually description following warning violation." Shaw, 701 367, 382 (CA5 1983); see, Passman Blackburn, 797 1335, 1346 (citing Shaw ); Rosenthal, 793 1214, 1243 (CA11 (same); Elkins, 774 530, 537 (CA1 1985) (Doyle "strictly constitutes Clause"); Webb 773 646, 648 ("Doyle proclaimed general accused's silence"); Remigio, 767 730, 734 (CA10 ("[T]his consistently comments prosecutors plain, error") (citations light authority "clear-cut" credibility, 1986), five courts examined 31 its case, argues comment, suggests, amount "use" purposes, equivalent "inquiry silence." Ante, 764. What overlooks, however, needs notify "tell story" "insolubly ambiguous" "consistent exculpatory explanation," 8, 2244, nevertheless likely draw" "strong negative inference" 180, 2138, (1975). found, effectively credibility. 734-735. 32 notes actions minimized harm caused, implies, distinguish previous Doyle. squarely based, regarding though questioning. 175, 3, 2136, 3. routinely addressed similar situations, commented contemporaneous automatically Courts context, along weight importance defense, determining doubt.1 "In prompt forceful alone vitiate Morgan Hall, 569 1161, 1167-1168 1978) added) cases); see 534 (instruction violations); 735 (finding merit" Government's Johnson, 558 1225, 1230 1977) ("Though consider remark, simple it"). 33 approach reflects both impact fairness inherent difficulty undoing cause. With impact, rarely harmless." Zahradnick, 632 353, 364 (CA4 1980) Fifth approval). "questions [are often] inextricably bound together," 1168, failure significantly undermine eyes. illustrates potential harm. linked accomplice. Jurors often accomplice reduced weight, leniency.2 Here depended entirely believed cross-examination—"Why arrested?"—thus struck directly heart defense: If rationale force, defendants protected tactics. 34 Lower calls resultant easily cured. First, aware foundation laid subsequent, subtle attacks.3 Second, "curative" themselves some serve exacerbate related involving statement calling testify STEVENS "[i]t unrealistic assume always benign effect." Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 347, 98 1091, 1098, 55 319 (1978) opinion). 35 "For testify] undeniably adverse defendant. Even jurors try faithfully obey instructions, connection between natural resisted. overlooked it, telling them like white bear." 345, 1098. 36 Simon elaborated point: 37 "An remedied instruction. [it were], little incentive inquiries defendant; safely inform risking court. best partial remedy. confuse jury; anyway. close one, based wholly circumstantial work extreme prejudice defendant, notwithstanding instruction." People 398, 855, 322, 328 (1983) 38 error, irrelevant today confuses inquiries, eliminates much protection afforded 39 Today's radical departure established inappropriate either "concede[d]" "any referring [defendant's] [for murder] improper." 442.4 whether, assuming existence appellate lenient error.5 decided "fairly review." 761, contention, ibid., briefs appears me mistaken.6 overturned below, upset raise opportunity heard. saps vitality. adhere § principles, courts. dissent. magnitude clear contribute 24, 828. Arizona, 384 436, 467-473, 1602, 1624-1627, 694 (1966). was: "Whether, considering proceedings, substantially affected doubt." i. Throughout argument, parties loosely violations." presents extensive assessing Brief Petitioner 24-29, stating brief "effort prior constituted [Doyle ]." responds 24-37. Before reaching applies, we satisfied dimension occurred. fairly Rule 21.1(a). defendants' answers included: 'Q. [I]f agent] arrived scene him?' 614, 2243. You innocent? 'A. am innocent. Yes Sir. That's department arrived—. your innocence? innocence. No.' 614-615, 2243, [Y]ou said instead protesting innocence, response agent],—"I don't know what talking about." said,—"What's about?" All right,—But protest innocence time? Not until knew going on.' 615, dissent, "argu[e] Post, 770. contrary, hold including court, instructions—indicates meaning dissent finds mileage stressing accomplice's credible precisely remained arrest." 773, "full mileage" certainly debatable. fails note object portion ground. believes He joins 768—769. conclude case," occasion differently agreed C-1—C-4. Because demanding "fundamental fairness" Clause, address analyzed detail. 1986). facts, developed reviewed decisions determine rises level first indicated ruling admissibility type "for being," 32, bench conference determined improper. 43. additional deliberate, gave normally presume follow inadmissible inadvertently "overwhelming probability" unable Richardson Marsh, 200, 208, 1702, ----, 176 (1987), strong likelihood "devastating" Bruton States, 391 123, 136, 1620, 1628, 476 (1968). reason incapable obeying instructions. And far "devastating," ambiguous." specific. bore primary responsibility ensuring manner advantageous client. Once became apparent grant mistrial, duty strategy client's interest. primarily consisted detailed corroborated physical testimonial evidence. 387-392, 850-852, 323-325. distinction supported retroactive application newly 543, 1216, Our recent Griffith Kentucky, 314, 708, 649 endorsed Harlan's view great extent, proposition. Compare Griffith, Allen Hardy, 478 255, 2878, 92 199 Matire 811 1430, 1436-1437 1987); Harrold, 796 1275, 1280 1986); 535-540 1985); 382-384 1983) (discussing cases). accomplice, shooting victim, sentence years' probation, testimony. 440, 446, robbery. 441. "deal" struck. 45-46. For example, exploit awareness arrest: "We deal, that, guy accomplice] who's willing truth, man 1980 day crime]. Sure, wrong details; sure, things out; confusing; lied Regulator Tavern first, custody few hours. him, cold turkey, story, account, shortly factually independent investigator. So put aside. is, deal truth. really boils down truth? 'Chuck' That choice. It's that." solely construed period weapons charge, given, charge receipt afternoon." sole premised violation: i petitioner's refers "an Doyle," 16, contains reference, indirect, develops today. One "casual midst unrelated claim." Board Directors Rotary International Club, 537, 550, 9, 1940, 1948, (1987). Apart making casual devoted discussion presented—whether appropriate violations. surprisingly, brief.

Classification Label: 0