Legal Document

405 U.S. 278 92 Supreme Court Reporter 916 31 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 202 John ADAMS, Petitioner,v.State of ILLINOIS. Number 70—5038. Argued Dec. 7, 1971. Decided March 6, 1972. Syllabus Petitioner's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment against him because court's failure appoint counsel represent at preliminary hearing in 1967 was denied, and petitioner tried convicted. The Illinois affirmed on ground that Coleman versus Alabama, 399 1, 90 1999, 26 387, which this held a is critical stage criminal process accused constitutionally entitled assistance counsel, did not have retroactive application. Held: judgment affirmed. Pp. 280—286. 46 Ill.2d 200, 263 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 490, Mr. Justice BRENNAN, joined by STEWART WHITE, concluded supra does apply retroactively hearings conducted before June 22, 1970 when decided. 280—285. Chief BURGER concurred result, concluding, as set forth his dissent Coleman, there no constitutional requirement should be provided hearings. 285—286. BLACKMUN concluding wrongly Pacific KF135 P2 286. Edward M. Genson, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. E. James Gildea, respondent. BRENNAN announced an opinion, WHITE join. 1 In decided 1970, we counsel. This case presents question whether doctrine applies prior 1970. 2 Circuit Cook County, Illinois, February 10, 1967, charge selling heroin. Petitioner represented hearing. He bound over grand jury, indicted him. By he sought dismissal it invalid court denied May 3, authority People Morris, 30 406, 197 433 (1964). Morris had right conviction Court, rejected petitioner's argument later decision required reversal. acknowledged its superseded Coleman,1 but applied only after date 490 (1970). We granted certiorari limited retroactivity Coleman. 401 953, 91 981, 28 236 (1971). affirm. 3 criteria guiding resolution new rules procedure 'implicate (a) purpose served standards, (b) extent reliance law enforcement authorities old (c) effect administration justice application standards.' Stovall Denno, 388 293, 297, 87 18 1199 (1967). given complete rule, regardless good-faith or degree impact justice, where 'major overcome aspect trial substantially impairs truth-finding function so raises serious questions about accuracy guilty verdicts past trials . ..' Williams States, 646, 653, 1148, 1152, Examples are trial, Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799 (1963); appeal, Douglas California, 353, 814, 811 some forms arraignment, Hamilton 368 52, 82 157, 7 114 (1961). See generally supra, U.S., 297—298, S.Ct., 1970—1971; 653 n. 1152. 4 However, 'the rule enhance reliability fact-finding necessarily matter degree,' Johnson New Jersey, 384 719, 728—729, 86 1772, 1778, 16 882 (1966); 'question probabilities.' Id., 729, 1778. Thus, although requiring lineup, Wade, 218, 1926, 1149 (1967); Gilbert 263, 1951, 1178 (1967), 'aimed avoiding unfairness enhancing area identification evidence,' probabilities infecting integrity truth-determining denial lineup were sufficiently less than omission itself appeal those 'must turn weighed justified upon standards justice.' 298, 5 hold similarly role differs from factfinding require weighing such infection elements justice. may lay aside functions do bear trial—counsel's help persuading jury meanwhile admit bail. 9, 2003. Of counsel's other functions—to 'fashion vital impeachment tool use cross-examination State's witnesses trial,' 'discover State has client,' 'making effective arguments matters necessity early psychiatric examination .,' ibid.—impeachment discovery make particularly significant contribution enhancement process, since they materially affect accused's ability present defense trial. But limitations purposes, cannot effectual appeal. terminate once probable cause established, see Bonner, 37 553, 560, 229 527, 531 means obtained will vary depending how much evidence presiding judge receives. Too, prosecution ultimately gathered complete. Cf. S.Rep.No. 371 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 33, amending Code KF62 § 3060. Counsel must also avail himself alternative procedures, always factor scales. 730, 1779. provides, example, bills particulars names witnesses. Ill.Rev.Stat., chapter 38, §§ 114—2, 114—9, 114—10 Pretrial statements purposes. See, e.g., Johnson, 602, 206 Northeastern N59 6 accordingly agree with conclusion 'On scale probabilities, lack involves danger trial' Such ordinarily greater, consider, unrepresented line-up interrogation without presence attorney.' Ill.2d, 207, N.E.2d, 494.2 then infect standard think faulted anticipating There clear foreshadowing rule. A contrary inference unreasonable light our decisions 114, White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 10 193 (1963). denominated arraignment Alabama defenses asserted might forever lost. uncounseled plea Maryland could introduced Many state courts unreasonably regarded fashioning governing 433. Moreover, number courts, including all federal appeals entitling counsel.3 It thus been understandable widespread view officials courts. 8 follows 'would seriously disrupt laws.' 731, 1780. At very least, processing current calendars would disrupted while determine constituted harmless error. 300, task conducting immeasurably complicated need construct record what occurred. reporter pre-Coleman proceedings therefore recorded. Givans,83 Ill.App.2d 423, 228 123 addition, relief error merely also, least indictment. needs elaboration. Therefore, here '(t)he unusual force countervailing considerations strengthens favor prospective application.' 299, regard calling made indictment, us direct review. '(T)he factors burden (are) overriding significance (those) distinction(s) unsupportable.' 300—301, makes claim actual prejudice constituting due process. entitle today's holding applied. Bernatowicz, 35 192, 198, 220 745, 748 561, 532 Affirmed. 11 POWELL REHNQUIST took part consideration case. 12 BURGER, concurring result. 13 & N Immigration Nationality Decisions concur result maintain expressed my 21, 2010, 387 (1970), sound judicial administration, done. As noted command 'criminal prosecutions,' shifting notion 'critical stages.' Nor can join adjudication assure client.' Nothing better illustrate extra-constitutional scope interpretation now explain why 'retroactive.' 14 BLACKMUN, 15 Inasmuch feel decided, DOUGLAS, whom MARSHALL concurs, dissenting. 17 Until Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 601 (1965), traditionally cases finalized police practices operative promulgation rules.1 Linkletter, however, cradle nonretroactivity exempts earlier victims unconstitutional practices. disagreed numerous occasions applications various brands continue case.2 My own even-handed requires either prospectivity only3 retroactivity. To me something inherently invidious Harlan phrased it, '(s)imply fishing one stream appellate review, using vehicle pronouncing permitting similar subsequently flow unaffected .' Mackey 667, 679, 1160, 1173, 404 (1971) (separate opinion). critique, id., 695, 1181, purported distinction between designed improve further values 'inherently intractable' point adverted Court's difficulty reconciling DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 88 2093, 20 1308 (1968), nonretroactive designed, part, questioned workability any guess 'whether particular really 'new' simply well-established principle.' 1181; Desist 394 244, 89 1030, 1041, 22 248 (1969). For suggest infra, 293—295, arises fully anticipated authorities.4 Additionally, curious plurality sensitive 'reasonable reliance' agencies unconcerned arbitrarily granting denying Adams. 19 Given disagreement plurality's am reluctant even attempt terms, balancing approach appear retroactive. reinforces fear too imprecise neutral guide lower invariably permit predilections, principles. * applying first troubled adoption finding below that: (the) appeal.' Ante, 282—283. same said sentencing, Mempa Rhay, 389 128, 254, 336 certain arraignments, (1961), pleas taken, (1963), retroactive.5 21 Rather reaching these analogies, however suggests greater relying gives short shrift 'in practice (the preliminary) provide most valuable technique available him,' ex rel. Wheeler Flood, 269 F.Supp. 194, 198 (EDNY 1967), objective readily achievable lineups interrogations serves protective function. access superior investigative resources keep secret until normally puts defendant disadvantage.6 disparity, important service performs penetrate offered hearing, test strengths weaknesses (without jury), learn addresses witnesses, focus key factual issues upcoming preserve testimony techniques suggested puny comparison. bill usually reach witnesses' names, cold comfort obtain inasmuch often prepared viewpoint subjected cross-examination. And many discoverable. Finally, read Coleman's exaltation virtues counseled hearings, language lend 'credibility gap' involved 'Plainly,' hand essential protect indigent erroneous improper prosecution,' 2003, and: 'The inability realize advantages lawyer's compels stage' 'as aid (of counsel) itself." somewhat anomalous fundamental enough incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment warrant previous conduct.7 II 23 believe establishing standards' systems ignores developments right-to-counsel First all, afforded stage. build wring negative implication probable-cause permissible. implications found, says plurality, reversing convictions through entered Neither decisions, faced reversal facts instant And, though studied two opinions, unable, divine hidden message taken. Rather, reinforce, mind, importance every event, time came down, clear, opined, albeit regret, inevitable consequence law: 24 'If felt free consider clean slate voted affirm convictions. But—in lengths appointed carried recent Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694 Mathis 391 1503, (1968); Orozco Texas, 324, 1095, 311 (1969) course open way adjudicatory conceive work. 25 indeed strange having suspect pre-trial stages 'in-custody' investigation, station house (Miranda) home (Orozco), left fend formal confrontation courtroom.' 19—20, 2008 opinion).8 case, times relevant, foreseen attached III 27 disagree (Coleman retroactivity) elaboration.' 284. months prosecutions presumably followed concerned median sentence felons released 20.9 months,9 sentences practical former prisoners seek exclude more routinely American Bar Association, Project Standards Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services 5.1 (Approved Draft 1968). possibility collateral challenges commissioners.10 Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 5(b). While who challenge their confinements if retrospective, attacks probably fail under harmless-error Chapman 386 18, 824, 705 opinion onerous. One reason recorded That assertion entirely accurate fact contains transcript Adams' Perhaps, respondent seems concede,11 transcripts cases. reasonable assumption Roberts LaVallee, 40, 41 circumstances affluent one. 29 Even available, prisoner able show evidentiary prejudiced discovery, adverse favorable witness, secure release bail order assist preparation defense.12 Courts accustomed, course, assessing claims proceedings, Jackson 378 368, 84 1774, 908 (1964), Townsend Sain, 70 Indeed, remanded determination error, 11, 2004. Not disposed summarily, resulting materialized Procunier Atchley, 400 446, 485, 524 1971, analogy frequently invoked out imposed 'such (they) infringed (their) law.' Conducting burdensome 'fundamental fairness' post-conviction proceedings. whatever litigation follow retrospectivity considered price pay failures fair procedures. stated, 205—206, 493, 'A determining offense committed .. both step prosecution, prosecutor directly thereby eliminating proceeding. neither offer risk being precluded raising them itself. conclude procedures alike pursuant section 109—3 (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1969, ch. par. 109—3) counsel.' July Constitution Article I, S.H.A. Accord: Phillips Carolina, Federal 659, 662 Appeals Fourth observed: 'To sure, held, gains rights effectively exercised attorney. Counsel's function, Broadly speaking, advise, observe, discover facts, probe state's respect capacity interrogations, retroactive.' Pagan Cancel Delgado, 408 1018 (CA1 1969); Cooper Reincke, 333 608 (CA2 1964); Budd Maroney, 398 806 (CA3 1968); DeToro Pepersack, 332 341 (CA4 Walker 409 1311 (CA5 Waddy Heer, 383 789 (CA6 1967); Butler Burke, 360 118 (CA7 1966); Pope Swenson, 395 321 (CA8 Wilson Harris, 351 840 (CA9 1965); Latham Crouse, 320 120 (CA10 1963); Headen 115 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 317 145 E.g., Eskridge Washington Prison Board, 357 214, 78 1061, 1269 (1958); (see 250 15, 1034, (1969)); Reck Pate, 367 433, 81 1541, 948 640, 1743, (1965); Tehan Shott, 382 419, 459, 467, 453 736, 1782, 302, 1972, 635, 2096, 255, 1037, (1969); Halliday 831, 835, 1498, 1500, 713, 1170, 301, 1199, prospective-only violate controversy. England Louisiana Board Medical Examiners, 375 411, 422, 461, 468, 440 (1964) exempted holding. 733, 1780, 882. subscribe reservations Harlan, nonetheless find unsatisfactory. 675, 1171, opinion), nonfinal pending holdings, seeking habeas treated according prevailing latter score troubled. Surely facile unearth years assign, test, reasonableness older agencies. Where arisen petitioners modern law, rules. (1961) (habeas permitted basis convicted 1936). announcing Professor Schwartz, drawing bright line review unjustified: 'Where constitutionality concerned, making sharp corpus unwarranted. difference age potential staleness types coming final, routine normal taken denied. Sometimes, actually replaces certiorari, Fay Noia (372 391, 822, 837 (1963)) advised defendants skip petition district corpus. situations goes steps, nothing fortuitous circumstance determines still attack comes down. look operation. Although sometimes 'normal' method obtaining convictions, provide, remarked Noia, 'a channel sense comparable writ error,' limit jurisdiction beyond immediate Habeas corpus, hand, facilitates take providing focused exclusively question. become primary Further, development resulted gradual shrinking operational differences relationship proceeding, independent authority, defendant's violation procedural From functional standpoints, then, justifiable distinctions largely illusory.' 'In (on) undercuts bypass suggestion Noia. If doubts subject foreseeable future, well ignore certiorari. pass rejected, long pending, receive benefits intervening decisions. soon files day last entered, forfeited benefits. put election delayed all. inequity is, broader inequity: treating deprived differently get around enunciating final. Mishkin argues worry reasons barring undermines determinations guilt.' him, person complain lot others equally prosecuted. recognizes sustained. concludes 'there certainly rational bases previously final,' citing excerpts Professors Bator Amsterdam finality. Mishkin's rests finality considerations. 'Finality seem especially weak differ 'direct' whereas not. far apart age, admittedly persuasive. there, mere timing grant protection hardly sufficient unequal treatment; instances prisoner's fault render earlier. extent, down choice competing equality repose, choices sort notoriously immune reasoned resolution. below, threat appears greatly exaggerated, rejection untenable.' Retroactivity, Reliability, Due Process: Reply Mishkin, 33 U.Chi.L.Rev. 731—734 (1966). McConnell 393 2, 32, (1968) (Mempa retroactive); Arsenault Massachusetts, 5, 35, (White retroactive). advantage enjoyed extends prohibition common discovery. results scene crime, fresher recollections, authorized confiscate removable evidence, positioned conduct laboratory tests physical enjoy communication undercover world informers, air legitimacy conducive cooperation ways compel Norton, Discovery Process, 61 J.Crim.L., C. P.S. (1970); Comment Law: Pre-Trial Discovery—The Right Indigent's Inspect Police Reports, St. Louis U.L.J. 310 Moore, Discovery, Hastings L.J. 865 Statute Liberalize Harv.J.Legis. 105 Comment, Disclosure Cases: Are Headed?, Duquesne U.L.Rev. Bibliography: Tulsa 207 Symposium: Cases, F.R.D. 53 Brennan, Prosecution: Sporting Event Quest Truth?, 1963 Wash.U.L.Q. 279. aware theory presently commanding permits fortify values. here, suggests, three four serve process: preserving hostile discount bail, 'traditional freedom unhampered defense.' Stack Boyle, 342 4, 72 96 L.Ed. (1951). Kinney Lenon, 425 209, 210 1970), found appellant prepare defense,' incarcerated recognize sight seen scuffle. list added Bureau Prisons, National Prisoner Statistics Characteristics Prisoners, 1960, Pages 26—27 (1965). Government 50 heretofore proceeded premise confrontations identification.' Brief Respondent 33. supra.

Classification Label: 0