Legal Document

390 U.S. 129 88 Supreme Court Reporter 748 19 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 956 Fleming SMITH, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ILLINOIS. Number 158. Argued Dec. 7, 1967. Decided Jan. 29, 1968. Gerald W. Getty, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. John Judge O'Toole, respondent. Opinion of the by Mr. Justice STEWART, announced FORTAS. 1 In Pointer versus State Texas, 380 400, 403, 85 1065, 1068, 13 923, this held that Sixth Amendment right an accused to confront witnesses against him is a 'fundamental * made obligatory on Fourteenth Amendment.' The question presented in case whether Illinois denied petitioner, Smith. He was convicted criminal court Cook County, Illinois, upon charge illegal sale narcotics, and his conviction affirmed appeal.1 We granted certiorari consider constitutional claim.2 2 At trial principal witness petitioner man who identified himself direct examination as 'James Jordan.' This testified he had purchased bag heroin from restaurant with marked money provided two Chicago police officers. officers corroborated part testimony,3 but only crucial events inside restaurant, petitioner's version those entirely different.4 real at trial, therefore, relative credibility prosecution witness. 3 On cross-examination asked Jordan' name. admitted, over prosecutor's objection, it not. then what correct name was, sustained objection question.5 Later where lived, again question.6 4 As said Pointer, 'It cannot seriously be doubted late date included him.' U.S., 404, S.Ct., 1068. Even more recently we have repeated '(a) denial without waiver would error first magnitude no amount showing want prejudice cure it.' Brookhart Janis, 384 1, 3, 86 1245, 1246, 16 314. 5 present there not, sure, complete all cross-examination. But ask either or although admitted given false. Yet when issue, very starting point 'exposing falsehood bringing out truth'7 through must necessarily lives. witness' address open countless avenues in-court out-of-court investigation. To forbid most rudimentary inquiry threshold effectively emasculate itself. 6 Alford States, 282 687, 51 218, 75 L.Ed. 624, almost 40 years ago unanimously reversed federal because judge objections questions defense seeking elicit 'place residence' insistence counsel 'the jury entitled know 'who is, lives business is." 688—689, 218. What reversing fully applicable here: 7 essence fair reasonable latitude cross-examiner, even though unable state facts might develop. Prejudice ensues opportunity place proper setting put weight testimony test, which fairly appraise them. say can established cross-examination, if pursued, brought tending discredit chief, deny substantial withdraw one safeguards essential trial. 8 '* question, 'Where do you live?' not appropriate preliminary witness, its face, any such declaration purpose here, step identifying environment, may always directed. 9 'The extent respect subject within sound discretion court. It exercise judgment determining exhausted. obligation imposed court, suggested below, protect being discredited short attempted invasion protection self incrimination, properly invoked. There duty go beyond bounds merely harass, annoy humiliate him. here. *' 692—694, 219—220. 10 supra, clear confronted determined same standards proceeding *.' 407—408, 1070. follow standard hold deprived guaranteed under Amendments Constitution.8 11 Reversed. 12 WHITE, whom MARSHALL, joins, concurring. 694, 220, 624 (1931), recognized tend annoy, & N Immigration Nationality Decisions category inquiries endanger personal safety these situations, normally permissible, should least come forward some why excused answering question. ascertain interest defendant answer informed making ruling. Here gave reasons justifying refusal quite usual For reason join Court's opinion which, understand it, inconsistent views. note addition attorney known past, them ever knew lived time 14 HARLAN, dissenting. 15 believing requisite clarity issue constitutionally actual address. Were still view, after record, clearly presents concur due process, 'incorporation,' grounds.* however, raises serious doubt information did already thus rendering harmless inappropriate adjudication. State's Apparently knowing name, Jordan received negative reply. Further disallowed both Later, 'I represented before, Still later, how long James Jordan, replied, 'I'd new so, casualty.' also indicated narcotics addict, acquainted person whose legal Herbert Simpson. 17 face developments, suggestion perhaps nevertheless Jordan's least, exceedingly dubious. counsel, defendant, lacked requested information, nor pursue vigor questions; simply turned another series suggesting way attempt been prejudiced. inference seems me patent asking routine questions, answers, failure get answers consequence. 18 reverse record so opaque, indeed savoring disingenuous contention. Cf. Rescue Army Municipal Court, 331 549, 67 1409, 91 1666; Poe Ullman, 367 497, 81 1752, 989. therefore dismiss writ improvidently granted. 70 Ill.App.2d 289, 217 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 546. 387 904, 87 1693, 621. entered emerged heroin. They they found possession arrested refused sell directed believed purchase made. used $5 bill cup coffee, change. 'MR. PRIDE: Is your name? MARTWICK: Object. 'THE COURT: 'A. No, 'Q. won't that.' Now, live now? Objection. material. Objection, Judge. Yes, allowed.' shows fact lawyer 'Jordan' once However, evidence 'Jordan's' living See noted claim privilege compulsory self-incrimination asserted Cardillo, 316 Federal 606, 1056, 62. Nor are decisions McCray 386 300, Roviaro 353 53, 77 623, 639, relevant neither cases informer prosecution. Another recent decision evidentiary involved People Smith, 69 83, 89, 216 520, 523. Wigmore, Evidence § 2374, n. (McNaughton rev. 1961). my concurring result 408, 1070, 923.

Classification Label: 0