Legal Document

385 U.S. 293 87 Supreme Court Reporter 408 17 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 374 James R. HOFFA, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Thomas Ewing PARKS, Petitioner, versus UNITED Larry CAMPBELL, KING, Nos. 32—35. Argued Oct. 13, 1966. Decided Dec. 12, Joseph Atlantic Fanelli, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Fred M. Vinson, Jr., and Nathan Lewin, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Over a period several weeks in late autumn 1962 there took place federal court Nashville, Tennessee, trial by jury which Hoffa was charged with violating provision Taft-Hartley Act. That trial, known present record as Test Fleet ended hung jury. The petitioners now before us—James Hoffa, Parks, Campbell, King—were tried convicted 1964 endeavoring to bribe members that jury.1 convictions were affirmed Appeals.2 A substantial element Government's proof led these four contributed witness named Edward Partin, who testified incriminating statements he said King had made his presence during course trial. Our grant certiorari limited single issue whether use this case evidence supplied Partin operated invalidate convictions. 382 1024, 86 645, 15 538. 2 specific question us, framed counsel petitioners, is this: 3 'Whether obtained Government means deceptively placing secret informer quarters councils defendant one criminal so violates defendant's Fourth, Fifth Sixth Amendment rights suppression such required subsequent same on different charge.' 4 At threshold takes way worded, refusing concede it "placed' anywhere, much less did 'deceptively." In view we take matter, however, resolution verbal controversy unnecessary decision constitutional issues us. basic facts are clear enough, lengthy discussion detailed minutiae large portion briefs oral arguments addressed would serve only divert attention from real 5 controlling can be briefly stated. sole individual defendant, progress between October 22 December 23, 1962, Tennessee. president International Brotherhood Teamsters. During occupied three-room suite Andrew Jackson Hotel Nashville. One constant companions throughout petitioner King, Nashville local Teamsters Union. resident Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Union official there, repeated visits On frequented hotel suite, continually company associates, including around lobby, courthouse, elsewhere frequent reports agent Sheridan concerning conversations him each other, disclosing endeavors Partin's testimony at petitioners' unquestionably contributed, directly or indirectly, all petitioners.3 6 chain circumstances extended back least September 1962. time jail Rouge state charge. He also under indictment embezzling union funds, other indictments offenses pending against him. Between initial visit released bail charge, proceedings postponed. 8, telephoned discuss matters difficulties authorities. conversation asked if could see confer about problems, acquiesced. again called 18 arranged meet consulted occasions law enforcement agents, told might attempt tamper jury, lookout attempts report authorities any wrongdoing discovered. agreed do so. 7 After completed, wife received monthly installment payments $300 government charges either dropped not actively pursued. 8 Reviewing detail, insists fair inference went own initiative business problems ultimately cooperated closely after discovered tampering simply partial reimbursement out-of-pocket expenses, failure prosecute no necessary connection services an informer. findings support version facts,4 accepted Appeals 'supported evidence.' 349 Federal Reporter, 2nd 36. But 'placed' proceed upon premise first arrived 22, compensated such. It consider presented. 9 Before turning those mention additional preliminary contention Government. case, King. So far appears, never saw two period. Consequently, argues that, has standing raise claim right impaired, have respect claims. Cf. Wong Sun States, 371 471, 487—488, 491—492, 83 407, 417—418, 419—420, 441; Jones 362 257, 259—267, 80 725, 730—734, 697. clear, hand, uncovered leads possible development Parks Campbell. need pursue nuances 'standing' questions, because evident event none prevail unless prevails. For reason, ensuing confined claims (hereinafter petitioner), clearly invoke. I. 10 contended petitioner's Fourth able hear therefore inadmissible exclusionary rule Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 L.Ed. 652. argument disclose role vitiated consent gave entries into listening conducted illegal 'search' evidence. 11 steps solid ground. room object protection home office. Jeffers, 342 48, 72 93, 96 59. certainly violated guileful well forcible intrusions constitutionally protected area. Gouled 255 298, 41 261, 65 647. And protections surely tangibles, but extend statements. Silverman 365 505, 81 679, 734. 12 Where falls its misapprehension fundamental nature scope protection. What protects security man relies when places himself property within area, office, automobile.5 There unwarranted governmental intrusion. puts something filing cabinet, desk drawer, pocket, know will secure unreasonable search seizure. tolerate warrantless purloining private papers Gouled, surreptitious electronic surveillance Silverman. Countless cases come over years involved myriad differing factual contexts been appropriately invoked. No doubt future bring countless others. By nothing say here foresee foreclose situations may applicable. 13 interest legitimately involved. obvious relying presence. enter force stealth. eavesdropper. invitation, every heard directed knowingly carried petitioner, word, room; misplaced confidence reveal wrongdoing.6 As points out, some communications all, 'hall hotel,' 'Andrew lobby,' 'at courthouse.' 14 Neither nor member ever expressed wrongdoer's belief person whom voluntarily confides it. Indeed, unanimously rejected very than ago Lopez 373 US. 427, ,S.Ct. 1381, 462. attempted bribery internal revenue Davis. divided regard admissibility recording office dissent Davis admissible. put it, 'Davis guilty unlawful invasion apparent willingness accept real. Compare 441. consent, while violate privacy seizing surreptitiously without knowledge. supra. consisted Davis, knew full used wished. * *' 438, 1387, words dissenting Lopez, 'The risk being overheard eavesdropper betrayed deceived identity deals probably inherent conditions human society. kind necessarily assume whenever speak.' Id., 465, 1402, See Lewis 206, 424, 312. 16 Adhering views, hold case. II. 'be compelled himself' admission testimony. merit. sharply views ultimate reach compulsory self-incrimination. Some differences aired last Term Miranda State Arizona, 384 436, 499, 504, 526, 1602, 1640, 1643, 1654, 694. since long 1807, Chief Marshall matter Aaron Burr,7 self-incrimination compulsion. Thus, dealing Amendment's impact police interrogation persons custody, predicated conclusion 'that proper safeguards process in-custody suspected accused crime contains inherently compelling pressures work undermine individual's resist compel speak where otherwise freely. U.S., 467, 1624, 19 product sort coercion, legal factual. wholly voluntary. privilege III. 20 makes separate Amendment, give them consideration. 21 lawyers interview witnesses, plan following day's strategy. Therefore, counsel, essential ingredient thereof prepare intrusion their confidential relationship government, adversary. Since thus continues, acquired reason tainted We reject argument. place, what extent conferences counsel. Several hearing motion suppress Most position lawyers' discussions 'would move you out' they wanted denied effort 'get anything sort,' engaging banalities 'how things looked,' does look?' conversations, didn't talking about, 'because & N Immigration Nationality Decisions wasn't interested case.' Sheridan, latter 'wasn't attorneys said.' largely confirmed Sheridan. testify, occasion group prospective character witnesses interviewed lawyers, 'was going over' written 'questions answers' them. This information evidently relayed chief attorney trial.8 23 District apparently credited testimony, finding 'there interference attorneyclient finding. Sheridan's interviews hypothesis observe activities defense 24 proposition camp found expression decided theDistrict Columbia Circuit, Caldwell 92 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 205 879, Coplon 89 103, 191 749. Both dealt grossest Coplon, alleged agents deliberately intercepted telephone consultations her lawyer Caldwell, agent, '(i)n dual capacity assistant gained free access planning defense. dealings prosecution proposed acts defense: covered many connected impending trial.' U.S.App.D.C., 356, 880. 25 rightly decided, further assume, deciding, sufficiently similar invoke decisions. resulted conviction instead presumptively set aside defective. Black 26, 190, 26. 26 holding follows presumption should both unprecedented irrational. held 'invalidates occurred.' 114, 759; 357, 881. new trial,9 second declined review. 95 35, 218 370; 930, 75 773, 99 1260. here, therefore, goes beyond Coplon. accepted, existing even defendant. 27 imagine pervasively insinuate itself make impermissible Amendment.10 arguable situation hypothesized previous undermining thereby charges, us remotely approach situation. 28 clinching fact legitimate prosecution. related commission quite offense—attempted jurors—and out lawyers. 29 Even assuming, have, violation invalid conviction, one, sense 'fruit' violation. 441, involving exclusion stated 'the more apt 'whether, granting establishment primary illegality, instant objection exploitation illegality distinguishable purged taint.' Maguire, Evidence Guilt, 221 (1959).' 488, 417, 30 strict standard excludability apply Amendment—a decide—it consequence 'exploitation' totally unrelated subject assumed These statements, embodied antithesis baron 31 needs discussion. follows: Not later 25, sufficient ground taking custody charging Had done so, continued observance Massiah 377 201, 84 1199, 246; Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 1758, 977. concludes, inadmissible, flouting 32 Nothing Massiah, Escobedo, our attention, suggests novel paradoxical doctrine, decline adopt now. arrested.11 guess peril precise moment probable cause arrest suspect, risking act too soon, wait long. Law officers duty call halt investigation minimum establish cause, quantum fall short amount conviction. IV. 33 Finally, violation—'as separately measured Amendment'—of clause judgment must nonetheless reversed. based Due Frocess Clause Amendment. 'totality' conduct operated, said, "offend canons decency fairness express notions justice English-speaking peoples toward most heinous offenses' (Rochin (People of) California, 165, 169 (72 205, 208, 183)).' boils down general attack 'a shabby thing case,' particular perjurious high. Insofar informers historic 'notions' 'English-speaking peoples,' historical foundation. Judge Learned Hand, 'Courts countenanced immemorial; conspiracy, consists preparing another crime, usually rely accomplices criminals almost covertly. Dennis, Cir., 183 224. 35 slightest degree relevant restrictions agent. 246. per se unconstitutional. 36 correct perhaps informers, motives lie. follow untrue, inadmissible. established Anglo-American system leave veracity tested cross-examination, credibility determined properly instructed subjected rigorous insistently explored.12 judge specifically13 generally,14 assessing credibility. Constitution require upset jury's verdict. 37 Affirmed. 38 WHITE FORTAS part consideration cases. 39 WARREN, dissenting. 40 cannot agree affirming opinions CLARK DOUGLAS effect writs improvidently granted. latter, seems me troubles my Brothers roadblock review important questions presented petitions. settled bound lower courts violated. Jacobellis Ohio, 184, 1676, 793 (1964); Haynes 503, 1336, 513 (1963); Watts Indiana, 338 49, 69 1347, 93 1801 (1949); Hooven Allison Evatt, 324 652, 870, 1252 (1945); Norris Alabama, 294 587, 55 579, 79 1074 (1935). independent examination deprivations resting, does, solemn responsibility maintaining inviolate.' Napue People 360 264, 271, 1173, 1178, 1217 (1959). 42 resolving contradictory basis Findings crediting discrediting others accorded insulation appellate superior opportunity demeanor witnesses. surrounding entry Hoffa's substantially dispute. While forth greater detail infra, brief summary discloses discussing learning intense mutually beneficial interest, successfully solicited invitation Hoffa. release assisted financial well; return, kept fully informed occurred outset contact 43 Surely reasonable construction acting paid traveled attached urging meeting inconsistent conclusion. An prevailing friendship victim proscribed accomplished force. 246 647 (1921). 44 Moreover, granted petitions cases, exactly then change light. short, prevent facing up determining stand light power supervision administration courts. 45 me, today (Lewis 312, Osborn 323, 429, 439, 394) comparison facets undercover agents. voted sustain activity find impossible practices evidenced offensive 46 date annals enforcement, or, uses are. adequately enforced employment guile misrepresentation identity. officer performing duties always uniform wear badge authority lapel civilian clothing. Nor proclaim arm law. blinks realities sophisticated, modern-day argue contrary. However, careful scrutiny challenged order insure respected maintain integrity enforcement. 47 three decide regard. Although involve termed deception gather prosecutions, reviewed essentially different. simplest Lewis, wherein narcotics having believe trafficker narcotics, using name mutual friend sold narcotics. occupation invited which, incidental turned home. purchased occur reduced-price basis. Later, purchase executed manner. 48 then, household. heard, seen, taken transactions Lewis. purpose agent's buy details concerned invaded location overtly covertly, seized observed visit. Lewis' principles elaborated (1921), protect overreaching. endorse unconscionable unreliable responsible Sherman 356 369, 78 819, 848 (1958). 49 employed Robert Vick, investigate panel selected prior city. Vick's loyalty due department, learned Vick cousin urged offer $10,000 return latter's promise vote acquittal sit petit proposal, affidavit preside judge, determine truthfulness authorized equipping device petitioner. wrong verifying protecting fashion.1 462 (1963). supports unbridled equipment permitted searching crime. lend judicial sanction wiretapping, 'bugging' questionable spying invade appear increasingly prevalent country today. 734 (1961); (1966); Schipani, 825, cert. 934, 293, 217, rehearing granted, vacated, remanded suggestion Solicitor General, 372, 533, 428. 50 materially, fundamentally, Here, jailbird languishing Louisiana crimes embezzlement, kidnapping, manslaughter (and soon perjury assault), contacted willing become, useful as, motive doing immediately apparent—namely, strong desire various entanglements Governments.2 interesting note motive, uniquely successful satisfying volunteered prosecuted serious jailed, vanished thin air. 51 Shortly Local acquaintance suddenly reduced $50,000 $5,000 jail. New Jersey, and, collaborating official, tape conversation. copy furnished Again pretext wanting talk regarding difficulties, few succeeded making Unknown recorded details. 52 Upon arrival manifested 'friendship' worming becoming parcel entourage. 'faithful' servant factotum became, overhear him, Pursuant instructions 'any intimidation jury,' illegal,' 'anything interest,' Part became equivalent bugging moved wherever went. Everything reported Government, through devious inferred, promises 53 type potential truth-finding Given incentives background allowed heavily quicksand rest, principal witness, here. although main grounds questions. affront quality presents exercise supervisory powers. ordering Mesarosh 352 1, 14, 77 (1956), unsavory who, admitted, committed cases: 54 'This jurisdiction If perform regard, waters polluted. Pollution condition remedied earliest opportunity. nation afford abide them.' 56 McNabb 318 332, 63 608, 613, 819 (1943). 57 dubious bad character. finds They good, bad, doubtful credibility, facts, leaving Here reaches jailhouse employ perjury) confronting offered inform. testifying already happened, rather infiltration committed. zeal gaining client engaged preparation And, obtained, enormous price. Certainly insinuated prosecution's manner obstructing justice. happened keeping standards must, dissent. CLARK, joined DOUGLAS. 59 dismiss 60 question: 61 My reveals informer, defendants' midst placed defendants (Hoffa).' approved erroneous.' findings. 62 'cannot undertake concurrent below absence exceptional showing error.' Graver Tank Mfg. Linde Air Products Co., 336 275, 535, 538, 672 (1949). shows choice permissible weight erroneous* Yellow Cab 338, 342, 70 177, 179, 94 150 finding, bound, 'obtained of' 64 Petitioners Campbell Code KF62 § 1503 corruptly influence juror Gratin Fields. offense Mrs. Paschal. 20. trial: day 'set night.' evening stay people. explained get try scattered jurors chances.' next want 'to pass him.' this, hit rear pocket hand. Tippens approached offer, 'pass something.' replied, dirty bastards neighbor $10,000,' added, 'We lay low days.' intended female juror, Paschal, favor, added husband, highway patrolman, 'loved money, $10,000.00 (is) lot money.' pay $20,000, whatever—whatever cost jury.' November 5, presence, berated failing patrolman.' arranging admitted yet patrolman complaining 'about getting criticized 'not like would,' adding 'wanted insurance.' Later day, prepared cover story allay suspicion. 'made contacts.' Paschal's stating promotion money. disturbed Highway Patrolman wouldn't money,' 'taken money pinned couldn't backexd up.' associate Hoffa's, Campbell's uncle, offers Fields, Negro juror. 7, according colored male (his) hip pocket,' 'took care it.' Negro, Fields refused 'go people.' concluded, '(I)t looks best bet foreman again.' denying stated: 'I midst, defendants.' court's memorandum contained statement: action motions complained Grounds rendered incorrect transcriptions calls 18, invite reflect appointment initiate alter Court's keep requested aware. information. remained returned request instruction Government.' deal applicability stranger decide. 'Many links frequently compose convict appears true compellable furnish himself. Burr (In re Willie), Fed.Cas. 38, (No. 14,692e) (C.C.D.Va.1807). (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner maintains cross-examination availed transmitted Partin. exchange prosecutor occurred: Q. 'Did (defense counsel) read, Sammut?' 'No, sir, newspaper.' 'Not newspaper? am newspapers, your Did read testimony?' 'After talked 'They answers, they?' answered.' conditioned wiretapping allegations. implicitly recognized possibility arising 'prejudice render unfair accused.' n. 11, 881—882, 11. side extraordinary arisen arrested underwent entire week. afforded wide latitude probe background, character, ties authorities; explore normally excludable, example, 1942, though charge prosecuted. 'did (the case) came accord pretense attempting convince trusteeship misconduct part, fabricating purposes interests.' instructed: 'You carefully scrutinize given testified, tends indicate worthy belief. Consider witness' intelligence, motives, mind, stand. relation bear *. All whose self-interest shown benefits received, detriments suffered, threats made, attitude tend prompt favorable unfavorable considered caution weighed care.' avoid calling testify. noted concurring result (373 1389, 462), secretary corroborating firsthand available cross-examination. Sydney Simpson, cellmate 'Sometime September, transferred Donaldsonville Parish Jail Jail. cell days, acted brave. Then hurry, excited nervous. me.' deputies Bill Daniels. Daniels Louisiana. Captain Edwards ask deputy, cell. away hours. 'A days From until released, sometimes night. 'It straightened don't worry.' day. working FBI frame enough help FBI, doesn't difference. fix 'While cell, why replied: 'What difference make? I'm thinking myself. Aren't yourself? damn 171—172. point testified: 'Mr. stick around.' Petitioners' 'virtually day' 'nightly meetings,' 'ready access' files offices 'sergeant-at-arms' just outside door suite. testify suppress.

Classification Label: 0