Legal Document

476 U.S. 683 106 S.Ct. 2142 90 L.Ed.2d 636 Major CRANE, Petitioner,v.KENTUCKY. No. 85-5238. Argued April 23, 1986. Decided June 9, Syllabus Prior to his trial for murder in a Kentucky court, petitioner moved suppress confession. Following hearing, the court determined that confession was voluntary and denied motion. At trial, petitioner, who 16 years old at time of arrest, sought introduce testimony describing length interrogation manner which it conducted. In attempting such testimony, hoped show confession, principal component State's case, unworthy belief. The ruled pertained solely issue voluntariness therefore inadmissible. jury returned verdict guilty. Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner's claim exclusion violated rights under Sixth Fourteenth Amendments. Held: about circumstances deprived fundamental constitutional right—whether Due Process Clause Amendment or Compulsory Confrontation Clauses Amendment—to fair opportunity present defense. Evidence secured, addition bearing on its voluntariness, often bears credibility, matter is exclusively assess. physical psychological environment yielded not only relevant legal question but can also be substantial relevance ultimate factual defendant's guilt innocence, especially case as this where there apparently no evidence link crime. Respondent's argument any error harmless since excluded came through other witnesses should directed first instance state court. Pp. 687-692. 690 S.W.2d 753, reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Frank W. Heft, Jr., Louisville, Ky., petitioner. John S. Gillig, Frankfort, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR 1 murder, judge conducted voluntary, obtained. His objective so doing suggest statement presented whether ruling Amendments Federal Constitution. 2 * On August 7, 1981, clerk Keg Liquor Store Kentucky, shot death, during course robbery. A complete absence identifying hampered initial investigation week later, however, police arrested then old, suspected participation an unrelated service station holdup. According suppression "just out clear blue sky," began confess host local crimes, including shooting officer, robbing hardware store, several individuals bowling alley. App. 4. Their curiosity understandably aroused, transferred juvenile detention center continue interrogation. After initially denying involvement Liquors shooting, eventually confessed crime well. 3 Subsequent indictment grounds had been impermissibly coerced violation Fifth ensuing he testified detained windowless room protracted period time, surrounded by many six officers interrogation, repeatedly requested permission telephone mother, badgered into making false Several offered different version events. Concluding "no sweating coercion defendant" overreaching" police, Id., 21. 4 proceeded trial. opening statement, prosecutor stressed Commonwealth's rested almost entirely uncle, told holdup murder. Tr. 10-14. response, defense counsel outlined what would prove avenue advanced trial—that, number reasons, story believed. rife with inconsistencies, argued. For example, committed daylight hours stolen sum money from cash register. fact, jury, occurred 10:40 p.m. all missing store. Beyond these suggested, "[t]he very surrounding giving [confession] are enough cast doubt credibility." 16. particular, she continued, 5 response counsel's before limine prevent introducing Such bore "voluntariness" urged, "legal matter" already resolved earlier ruling. 27. Defense responded intention relitigating seeking demonstrate "cas[t] validity Ibid. Rejecting reasoning, granted prosecutor's Although precise contours somewhat ambiguous, expressly held could inquire inconsistencies contained permitted "develop front jury" duration were attendance. 28. 6 registering continuing objection, invoked procedure develop record have put court's evidentiary That included two size characteristics room, interview, various details taking 45-53. 7 guilty, sentenced 40 prison. sole appeal Over one dissent, rejected affirmed conviction sentence. 753 (1985). "related voluntariness," reasoned. 754. credibility admissible, established pretrial determination conclusive may relitigated Because proposed question, held, keeping jury. 8 reasoning directly odds language Court's opinions, see, e.g., Lego v. Twomey, 404 477, 485-486, 92 619, 624-625, 30 618 (1972), because conflicts decisions every confronted issue, Beaver State, 455 So.2d 253, 256 (Ala.Crim.App.1984); Palmes 397 648, 653 (Fla.1981), we petition certiorari, 474 1019, 566, 88 551 We now reverse remand. II 9 holding below rests apparent assumption fall conceptually distinct mutually exclusive categories. Once has found believed, supported finding purpose. This analysis finds support our cases, premised misconception role confessions criminal and, contributed right California Trombetta, 467 479, 485, 104 2528, 2532, 81 413 (1984). 10 It well "certain techniques, either isolation, applied unique particular suspect, offensive civilized system justice they must condemned Amendment." Miller Fenton, 104, 109, 445, 449, 405 To assure fruits techniques never used secure conviction, due process requires "that [not] hear unless until [or some independent decisionmaker] freely voluntarily given." Sims Georgia, 385 538, 543-544, 87 639, 643, 17 593 (1967). See generally Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 12 908 (1964). 11 laying down rules questioned "evidence credibility" voluntariness. 386, n. 13, S.Ct., 1786, 13. As noted Jackson, "questions witness jury," requirement make does undercut traditional prerogative challenge confession's reliability same effect supra, stated, "Nothing [v. Denno ] province capacity juries assess truthfulness confessions. Nothing took relating accuracy weight admitted evidence. defendant free familiarize attend facts upon voluntariness." U.S., 625. 13 Thus, clear, extent addressed all, assumed secured will germane probative weight, 14 both Lego, while framed command, reflect common-sense understanding highly separate inquiries, factual. extracted is, course, purely most, States assign alone resolve. 378, 1781. But innocence. Confessions, even those guilt. And, part shown "insufficiently corroborated otherwise . belief." 624-625. Indeed, stripped power describe prompted effectively disabled answering rational juror needs answered: If innocent, why did previously admit guilt? Accordingly, regardless marshaled unsuccessful motion suppress, stand ability convince obtained casts credibility. 15 simple insight reflected federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a), Rules Evidence, Fed. Rule Evid. 104(e), statutory decisional law virtually State Nation. See, Mont.Code Ann. 46-13-301(5) (1983); 653. recognize, consensus broad inevitably congruent dictates acknowledge reluctance impose constraints ordinary rulings courts. given called dozens, sometimes hundreds, concerning admissibility reaffirmed Term, Constitution leaves judges "wide latitude" exclude "repetitive ., marginally relevant" poses undue risk "harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion issues." Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 679, 1431, 1435, 89 674 (1986). Moreover, application themselves serve interests fairness reliability—even if prefer see admitted. Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 302, 93 1038, 1049, 35 297 (1973). Nonetheless, without "signal[ing] diminution respect traditionally accorded establishment implementation their own procedures," little trouble concluding blanket proffered him 302-303, 1049-1050. Whether rooted Amendment, clauses Washington Texas, 388 14, 1920, 1925, 1019 (1967); Davis Alaska, 415 308, 94 1105, 39 347 (1974), guarantees defendants "a meaningful defense." 2532; cf. Strickland Washington, 466 668, 684-685, 2052, 2063, 80 (1984) ("The Clauses, defines basic elements largely provisions Amendment"). break new ground observing essential procedural heard. re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507-508, L.Ed. 682 (1948); Grannis Ordean, 234 385, 394, 34 779, 783, 58 1363 (1914). empty competent, reliable when central valid justification, kind exculpatory deprives encounter "survive crucible adversarial testing." United Cronic, 656, 2039, 2045, 657 22-23, 1924-1925. Under principles, courts erred foreclosing efforts rather peculiar case. Petitioner's entire that, variety admission defense, paint picture young, uneducated boy kept against small, unsolved county, stands convicted. do not, pass strength merits do, think plain indispensable chance succeeding. Especially neither opinion, nor respondent Court, justification wholesale body potentially evidence, decision reversed. Respondent contends ultimately witnesses. Petitioner concedes, agree, erroneous subject analysis. Oral Arg. 7; supra. believe, respondent's 19 judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 20 So ordered.

Classification Label: 0