Legal Document

476 U.S. 530 106 S.Ct. 2056 90 L.Ed.2d 514 Millie R. LEE, Petitionerv.ILLINOIS. No. 84-6807. Argued Dec. 9, 1985. Decided June 3, 1986. Syllabus Petitioner and a codefendant, charged with committing double murder, were tried jointly in an Illinois court bench trial at which neither defendant testified. In finding petitioner guilty of both murders, the judge expressly relied on portions codefendant's confession, particularly respect to judge's rejection petitioner's assertions that she had not participated murder one victims acted either self-defense or under intense sudden passion killing other victim. The Appellate Court affirmed convictions, rejecting her contention rights Confrontation Clause violated by consideration confession against her. Held: court's reliance upon as substantive evidence Sixth Amendment. Pp. 539-547. (a) right cross-examination is included accused's confront witnesses him; cross-examine primarily functional promotes reliability criminal trials. This truthfinding function uniquely threatened when accomplice's sought be introduced without benefit cross-examination, since such hearsay, subject all dangers inaccuracy characterize hearsay generally, accomplice may have strong motivation implicate exonerate himself. Thus, accomplices' confessions incriminate defendants are presumptively unreliable. 539-543. (b) On record here, did bear sufficient independent "indicia reliability," Ohio v. Roberts, 448 56, 66, 100 2531, 2539, 65 597, rebut presumption unreliability. circumstances surrounding statement could trusted regards participation murders. Nor there any merit Illinois' assertion was established because "interlocked" some points. A rendered reliable simply facts it contains "interlock" defendant's statement. Although here overlapped their factual recitations great extent, they clearly diverged planning victim's death, facilitation victim, relevant couple's premeditation. subjects two cannot characterized irrelevant trivial. determination, first instance, whether error harmless, for state courts. 543-547. 129 Ill.App.3d 1167, 96 Ill.Dec. 931, 491 N.E.2d 1391 (1984), reversed remanded. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, MARSHALL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed dissenting opinion, BURGER, C.J., POWELL REHNQUIST, joined, post, p. 547. Dan W. Evers, Mount Vernon, Ill., petitioner. Jill Wine-Banks, Chicago, respondent. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 trial. Neither testified charged, obtained police time arrest, question decision secured Amendment,1 applied States through Fourteenth 2 * February 1982, officers East St. Louis asked Lee come station help identify badly burned body discovered apartment housing complex lived. While examining photographs body, detective noticed began cry. advised Miranda rights, about whereabouts aunt, Mattie Darden,2 whom shared apartment. After giving number confused conflicting accounts concerning last seen talked finally admitted boyfriend, Edwin Thomas, been involved stabbing Aunt Beedie friend, Odessa Harris, Beedie's. At point, questioning again read placed continued concluding interview Lee, presented typewritten account statement, top page recitation waiver rights. signed each confession. 3 Petitioner's arrived station, ostensibly "questioning" homicides, while still process interviewing Lee; nonetheless, apparently sufficiently informed Thomas' involvement his arrival, he confronted officer alleged Thomas indicated point "wanted think about" talk police. 4 During police, see Thomas; after being if Lee. Lee's allowed meet. permitted kiss hug, then presence "what you just given us implicating Edwin?" said Thomas: "They know whole thing, don't love me Edwin, didn't fact say . we wouldn't let take rap alone." Brief Respondent 6. gave later typed review signature. 5 According evening 11, home aunt friend Harris approximately 8:30 9 p.m. went into bedroom, dishes kitchen. who watching television, joined kitchen, "two three words really argument." came out bedroom kitchen hell going on." As related "said ought ashamed ourselves arguing making noise. I told none business live here." returned bedroom. App. 6 further related, called back order confirm "really" paid rent. assured rent indeed paid, complained once more arguing. left return passed him "dirty looks." When turned head got up from chair stabbed 24-inch-long knife. fell floor, Beedie. explained 7 "ran, well ran walked standing over cabinet knife hand blood it. laying moaning. my Beety sitting bed hand. where from, usually kept gun bed. what kind is. off get way would kill swung butcher table her, hit chest, else eyes closed time." Id., 7. 8 also leading killing: "Me, stop[p]ing harassing before. She drunk phone tell people never anything give eat, boyfriend. used mad couldn't much auntie doing, talking doing something Beetty [sic] but what. always jumping face month ago argument dress use time. He, stand harass anymore. Things adding night killed anymore." 12. 10 paralleled several respects. It described between himself confrontation stabbings However, provided altogether different version how commit Most significantly, stated previously discussed Beedie, referred conversations immediately prior murders suggested premeditated plan kill. scolded 11 "This [Lee] 'did want go it?' referring plained before We figure do. tired getting drunk, coming 'going off' [Lee]. asking [Lee], do funny look, though it, stared space awhile, looked said, 'yes.' 12 "We decided somthing Odessa. wanted leave, stayed there. supposedto stand, toward front room, looking grab back, using big knife." 17-18. 13 contrast, provoked Beedie's behavior snapped Her made no mention herself "go it," nor, course, indicate formulated induce contrary, asserted killings "Edwin 14 two-count indictment murder. Count them count They appointed separate counsel 15 day trial, withdrew motions severance jury. withdrawing motion trials, "[s]ince having Bench Trial, only consider proper defendant, feel longer need motion." lawyer understanding well. replied: "Yes, your Honor. conferred Miss ask separately defendant." "It will done way." Tr. 3. 16 except behalf respective suppress statements ground involuntarily, denied judge. 17 prosecution heavily confessions. closing, attention argued showed "not responsible death Harris. personally Mr. was." 232-233. Counsel maintained law, person must during commission offense, fairly support finding. With killing, urged lesser charge voluntary manslaughter. counsel, knife, struggled, occurred result struggle. "unreasonable belief act Darden constituted self-defense" or, alternative, "was resulting serious provocation." Petitioners. 18 rebuttal, prosecutor arguments offenses "interesting." He answered suggestion insufficient intent asserting "once note indicates begins, spoke together 'Are ready?' And she, thinking 'Yes.' " this exchange, incorrectly attributed appeared demonstrated willingness part whatever plan" victims, thus agreement State closing—again erroneously drawing Thomas,' Lee's, confession—that "did aid assist encourage operation, bedroom"; evident necessary ahead To prove theories passion, pointed willing about, reply "I'm scared, it."3 236. 19 Odessa, explaining why rejected killings, allegedly earlier Thomas. contentions, declared, 20 "disputed co-defendant, conceived dispose Darden. responded did. There showing stabbing, according own took awaited arrival co-defendant call so out. Now isn't passion." 25. 21 sentenced term 40 years' incarceration life imprisonment 22 appeal, contended, among things, appeals conceded considered guilty, held defendants' "interlocking," fall within rule Bruton United States, 391 123, 88 1620, (1968), which, stated, "admission extrajudicial inculpates violates Amendment him." 1197, (1984). explain meant saying interlocked, analysis altered interlock. Supreme leave appeal. granted certiorari. 473 904, 105 3524, 87 650 (1985). II 23 concedes case involves 9. correctly recognizes admissibility matter law issue case; rather, properly identifies "whether guaranteed Clause. ." 11. contends, essence, unavailable "reliable" enough warrant its untested admission See 596 (1980). address availability, hold accomplice, unreliable reliability" overcome presumption. A. 24 Pointer Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 923 (1965), unanimously applicable so, remarked "cannot seriously doubted late date accused 404, S.Ct., 1068. Citing quoting cases Kirby 174 47, 574, 43 L.Ed. 890 (1899), Alford 282 687, 51 218, 75 624 (1931), Greene McElroy, 360 474, 79 1400, 1377 (1959), re Oliver, 333 257, 68 499, 92 682 (1948), Turner Louisiana, 379 466, 546, 424 observed "[t]here few subjects, perhaps, courts nearly unanimous than expressions essential fundamental requirement fair country's constitutional goal." Pointer, supra, U.S., 405, 25 level, adverse contributes establishment system justice perception reality fairness prevails. foster system, Constitution provides certain safeguards promote greatest possible degree society's interest accuser engage open even contest public advances these goals ensuring convictions based charges unseen unknown—and hence unchallengeable—individuals. 26 But guarantee serves symbolic goals. California Green, 399 149, 158, 1930, 1935, 489 (1970), identified mechanisms advance pursuit truth Confrontation, noted, 27 "(1) insures witness oath—thus impressing seriousness guarding lie possibility penalty perjury; (2) forces submit 'greatest legal engine ever invented discovery truth'; (3) permits jury decide fate observe demeanor aiding assessing credibility" (footnote omitted). Ibid. Our recognize cross-examination. has "is generally. More this, however, arrest codefendant traditionally viewed special suspicion. Due himself, less credible ordinary evidence." 141, 1631 (WHITE, dissenting) (citations 28 Douglas Alabama, 415, 1074, 434 conviction purportedly prosecutor. Because case, invoked privilege self-incrimination refused answer questions put him, "inability [the accomplice] plainly Clause." 419, 1077. holding, agreed, premised basic accuses another crime declarant stands gain inculpating another, accusation suspect subjected scrutiny 29 Over years Douglas, spoken voice declaring defendants. Even Harlan, generally regarded expansive reading right, "would prepared due formal interrogation guilt accused, absent circumstance indicating authorization adoption." Dutton Evans, 400 74, 98, 91 210, 224, 213 (1970) (concurring judgment). 30 ruling illustrates extent Court's concern type distort process. Bruton, joint despite carefully instructed admissible codefendant. our incriminates "inevitably suspect" "devastating" ordinarily sound assumption able follow faithfully instructions applied. 136, 1628. 31 present reaching decision, strictly speaking concerned effectiveness limiting preventing spill-over prejudice Rather, strikingly similar Douglas. Here, accused. cases, declarant. Whatever differences show concerns greater consequence uncooperative "refresh [his] recollection," 416, 1075, technically accused; was, following suppression hearing. Moreover, unlike speculate factfinder uncross-examined hearsay; relied. does hypothetical. danger erected—the based, least part, evidence—actually occurred. B 32 contends bears unreliability attaches codefendants' confessions, citing 597 agree rebutted, persuaded case. 33 recognized hearsay4 "a firmly rooted exception" inadmissible purposes, nonetheless meet standards supported "showing particularized guarantees trustworthiness." emphasized "[r]eflecting underlying purpose augment accuracy factfinding effective means test evidence, countenances marked trustworthiness 'there material departure reason general rule.' 65, Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 107, 54 330, 333, 78 674 (1934). grounds holding culpability standard.5 34 First, contrary contention, taken elicited already implicated implored share "the rap" unsworn response who, interrogated doubt knew for, tested manner contemporaneous equivalent. Although, points out, found Fifth free desire, motive, impulse mitigate appearance spreading blame overstate retaliation worth noting theoretical motive detriment, actively considering becoming adversary: contemplated documents process, namely, partners "jig up," tend lose identity become antagonists, rather accomplices. 35 reject second basis establishing reliability, points, should deemed trustworthy entirety. Obviously, identical respects, likelihood accurate significantly increased. necessarily Parker Randolph, 442 62, 79, 99 2132, 2142, 60 713 (1979) (BLACKMUN, concurring true inherent is, fact, selective reliability. consistently recognized, passages detailing conduct those product desire shift spread blame, curry favor, avenge divert another. If "interlocking" significant thoroughly substantiated poses too threat verdict countenanced words, discrepancies insignificant, admitted. 36 overlap extent. diverge aunt's For example, states "talking what," 12, refer "something Beedie" repeatedly mentions 17. indication colluded "do Odessa," id., 18, discuss assaulted loo[k]," walking By "[Lee] suppose kitchen" stab actually attacked beckoning. 19. Finally, pre-existing women. couple thought gloves 20, bodies. 10. 37 very issues dispute trial: roles played premeditation 38 sum, convinced exist flowing character weighty evidence. therefore us, occasion depart time-honored teaching inherently unreliable, violate confrontation.6 39 foreclose harmless assessed context entire Schneble Florida, 405 427, 1056, 340 (1972). better position assess remaining light determination instance Accordingly, judgment Illinois, Judicial District, reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. 41 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, POWELL, REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 42 yield Amendment, Fourteenth. denigrate lofty precepts developed strengthen enforcement. feel, times tends overly theory pronounced principles sake, disregard realities often real world one. centering senseless reprehensible Saint illustrative. confessed extensive cooperative crimes. Their corroborated mutually reinforcing vivid contrast blame-it-on-the-other-person buck-passing posturing develops accomplices apprehended endeavors rescue expense other. nothing here. 44 governed Under enunciated constitutionally "unavailable" bore reliability." 65-66, 2539. These requirements serve ensure out-of-court threaten central mission Clause, "to practical truth-determining trials assuring 'the trier [has] satisfactory evaluating statement.' 89, 220, (plurality opinion), 161, 1936, (1970). believe Roberts satisfied conclude permissible.1 45 Recognizing Framers' preference face-to-face accusation," construed embody necessity." 2538. available testify court, reliable, asserts unless produced 1935; Barber Page, 390 719, 1318, 255 (1968). "In usual produce, demonstrate unavailability of, whose wishes 2538.2 46 witness. physically courtroom, describe committed petitioner.3 Indeed, precisely brought place: although "produced" effectively 1077, 934 (1965). same way, testimony State. Phillips Wyrick, 558 F.2d 489, 494 (CA8 1977), cert. denied, 1088, 98 1283, 55 793 (1978). 47 weapons lacked. offered favorable sentencing recommendation, opportunity plead exchange Alternatively, immunity inculpatory Kastigar 406 441, 1653, 212 Measures kind, entail costs. plea compromises community's legitimate correctional interests, grant places heavy evidentiary burden future 460-461, 1664-65. arrangement purposes 48 My unwillingness reflects differs ways common-law introduction "stem roots," 86, 218 "protect values," 155, 1933. consequence, informed, constrained, legislatures. See, e.g., Among accepted notion successfully invoke determining exception rule. 168, n. 17, 1940, 17; Fed.Rule Evid. 804(a)(1); E. Cleary, McCormick Evidence § 253 (3d ed. 1984). embodied notion—that validly invokes testify—seems sound, approach 49 conclude, case—and realistic issues—that adequate allow Chief indicia unambiguously penal interest. White, 553 310, 314 (CA2), 431 972, 97 2937, 53 1070 (1977). declarations established; rests principle experience distinctly one's unlikely deliberately false heedlessly incorrect." J. Wigmore, 1457, 329 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974).4 Again, diverge. squarely exceptions possess imprimatur judicial legislative experience," G. Lilly, An Introduction Law 78, pp. 277-278 (1978), weigh assessment purposes. 50 majority correctly, ante, 541-542, customarily treated codefendants Never, per se Clause,5 suspicion shown contradicts untrustworthy course confess complicity, can advanced greatly ascribing bulk confederates. raising latter possibility—circumstances interest—that suspect." 1628, (1968); 141-142, 1630-31 ("Due evidence"). Such starkly "of crucial importance" triggerman. 417, 1076, Only shot fired, obviously convince authorities fired "fingering" minimized culpability. 52 little fear motivated respects interests claim side culpable Also, description diminished complicity. Far minimizing liability, consulted crimes carrying damaged defense petitioner's, conspiracy.6 Not interest, extensively Perhaps strongest corroboration mirrors striking detail. Both independently place complain (petitioner's confession) ("Odessa on"); (Thomas' asked, what's on"). rose recliner long-blade 6-7, 18-19. floor Darden, intercepted 7, agreed hammer, find bring skillet fractured struck twice. 20. head, spraying grease telling hitting hard enough. 8, past stop 17.7 every One expect be. particular, discussion "sudden passion," reasons, divergence undermine story occurrence discussion. Nothing place. Second, noted above, understood attempt diminishing culpability, increased potential liability petitioner's.8 addition fully consistent physical knives attacks hidden. 183-184. found, lighter fluid ignite bodies 21-22, broken skillet, 41-42, victims' remains, 17-18, 67-71, 78-82, 155-157. wounds Darden's accord 77-78. 56 amply supports voluntary. custody statements, notified pressure. interrogating alert sober questioning, cajoled way. 30-31, 37-38, 94-96, 104-106. 57 unusual conjunction thorough unambiguous adversity convincing voluntariness—that persuades de facto Were elements missing, might Together, bounds. III 58 pragmatic fashion, requiring "substantial compliance" 69, 2540; 166, 1939, acknowledging balance public's "strong enforcement," 64, 2538; Mattox 156 237, 243, 337, 409 (1895). regarding State, unusually indications 59 respectfully dissent. "[i]n prosecutions, shall enjoy him. known "Aunt Beety" Beedie." prosecutor, guilt, invited invitation generated significance, any, prosecutorial misconduct mistake results factfinder, question. McCormick's definition "testimony written matters therein, resting value credibility asserter." 246, 584 (2d 1972). quoted approvingly caveat "[s]implification measure falsification." (quoted 4, 2537, 4). respondent's categorization simple "declaration interest." That concept defines large class meaningful analysis. involving defendant. makes somewhat surprising argument—an argument, incidentally, afforded disagree. hearing determine voluntariness, falsity voluntariness inquiry, specifically clients testifying "for only." 205, 219. Before announced: "Let solely sustaining made." 205. especially satisfy demands Cf. Jackson Denno, 378 368, 376-377, 84 1774, 1780-81, 908 (1964) (A object uninfluenced confession"). 539, control admissibility. recently Inadi, 475 387, 1121, 89 (1986), specific required. assume, discussion, custodial like co-conspirator satisfied. testify, privilege. absence formality decisive. 571 285, 288 (CA5 1978). effort futile, courtroom prosecution. exceedingly event called, denial confrontation, questioned necessary, require occur; requires 70-71, 2541, old view proprietary pecuniary, penal, now discredited. refusal common exempt traced House Lords Sussex Peerage Case, Cl. & F. 85, Eng.Rep. 1034 (1844), Wigmore describes strongly judges precedents," 1476, 351 1974). doctrine announced termed "barbarous," 1477, 360, "indefensible logic," Advisory Committee's Notes 804(b)(3), U.S.C.App., 733. rationale allowing applies forcefully instead civil liability; indeed, "no murder." Donnelly 228 278, 449, 461, 820 (1913) (Holmes, dissenting). most jurisdictions introduction, appropriate circumstances, 278 1984); 804(b)(3). inadmissibility contested; 128, 1623, ("There intimate raise Clause"); opinion). situations Kelley, 526 615, 620 1975), 971, 1471, 739 (1976). typical accomplice. inculpation "collateral" allegations directly declarant's Comment, Federal Rule 804(b)(3) Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest, 66 Calif.L.Rev. 1189, 1190, inseverable presents favor theory, misguided please officers, see, 86 6, 2146 (STEVENS, dissenting), whenever confesses custody, renders confessing suspect. moreover, remote infra. details activities broad outlines follows: Harris' inside trunk outside trash. local store buy fluid, set fire. Using clothesline long aluminum lawn chair, carried vacant cleaned floors day, transferred remains cardboard stereo box, leaving box garbage. fire body. 8-11, 20-24. divided significance Compare 74-75, 2140 opinion) (Bruton inapplicable interlocking confessions), 77-81, 2141-2143 (opinion judgment) (interlocking make render inapplicable), 81-83, 2143-2144 (same). Since 5, views expressed Randolph imply, suggests, automatically 545. adhere position. hardly follows, Any categorical seems profoundly unwise.

Classification Label: 0