Legal Document

402 U.S. 622 91 Supreme Court Reporter 1723 29 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 222 Louis S. NELSON, Warden, Petitioner,v.Joe Judge baron O'NEIL. Number 336. Argued March 24, 1971. Decided June 1, Syllabus Respondent and one Runnels were charged with committing various crimes at their joint trial offered an alibi defense. A police officer testified that had orally admitted the implicated respondent. Runnels, who took stand, denied making statement. The judge ruled Runnels' alleged statement was inadmissible hearsay as to respondent could not be considered by jury in deciding whether guilty. also stand on his own behalf gave same version of activities Runnels. Both defendants found guilty, after unsuccessful efforts have conviction set aside, applied for habeas corpus relief. District respondent's improper under Bruton versus States, 391 123, 88 1620, 20 476, Roberts Russell, 392 293, 1921, 1100, which held Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment made applicable Fourteenth is violated where a codefendant's out-of-court into evidence without declarant's being available 'full effective' cross-examination defendant, cautionary instruction does adequately protect defendant codefendant testify. Appeals affirmed, stressing effective confrontation witness has allegedly implicating possible only if affirmed his. Held: Where takes defense, denies testifies defendant's favor, been no rights protected Amendments circumstances this case respondent, would encountered greater difficulty his, neither opportunity nor benefit fully effectively cross-examining Bruton, supra, distinguished. Pp. 626 630. 422 Federal Reporter, 2nd 319, reversed remanded. Charles R.B. Kirk, San Francisco, Cal., petitioner. Strouse Campbell, Arlington, Va., Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Joe O'Neil, arrested along man named when Culver City, California, answered midnight call from liquor store reporting two men white Cadillac suspiciously cruising about neighborhood. responded call, spotted Cadillac, followed it alley gun thrown its windows. They then stopped car apprehended Further investigation revealed stolen 10:30 night Los Angeles forced owner gunpoint drive them distance few blocks robbed him $8 driven off. victim subsequently picked lineup, positively identifying kidnaped him. 2 Arraigned charges kidnaping, robbery, vehicle theft, both pleaded they Each told story: spent evening home until 11 p.m., left together. While waiting bus stop up friend driving cadillac, he lend hours while went nightclub. accepted offer, once way discovered there glove compartment. entered search place dispose gun, since afraid car. Soon throwing out window arrested. supposed called shown unavailable, but other witnesses corroborated parts testimony. 3 positive in-court identification defendants, facts arrest. Another arrest unsworn oral admitting confederate. officer's testimony substance admissible against instructed consider When asked direct examination statement, flatly having done so. He vigorously asserted imputed false. intensively cross-examined prosecutor, stuck story every particular. counsel did cross-examine although was, course, free do identical question. prosecutor discussed confession closing arguments jury, repeated 4 guilty charged. After aside California courts, federal relief Northern pending decided holding certain Amendment,1 through Fourteenth,2 placed before trial.3 Roberts, Ninth Circuit affirmed. 319 (1970). Petitioner sought writ certiorari Court, contending, first, constitutional error second, any might harmless beyond reasonable doubt doctrine Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 17 705, and, third, should required first seek redress state claim. We granted these issues. 400 901, 136, 27 137. Since we agree petitioner violation Constitution case, unnecessary questions presented. 5 latter, therefore law. so ruled, must part or In however, that, quite apart law evidence, such adequate protection take stand. hears becomes substance, form, 'witness' defendant. constitutionally 'confront' witness. This cannot refuses 6 It clear 'confrontation' guaranteed trial—that is, absence time immaterial, long declarant can trial. confirmed Green, 399 149, 90 1930, 26 489, said '(v)iewed historically * good reason conclude statements, testifying subject full cross-examination.' Id., 158, S.Ct., 1935. Moreover, 'where absent, present testify submit cross-examination, our cases, anything, support conclusion admission statements create problem.' 162, 1937. true, even though him, instruction, reversible construed words, unavailable cross-examination. 7 question presented then, trial, during period described claims 8 affirming relied heavily dictum Douglas Alabama, 380 415, 420, 85 1074, 1077, 13 934, 'effective confrontation' 'was (the witness) his.' remarked 'could him.' 419, 1077. Of concerning 'affirmed' U.S., 127, 1623. (and cases Green)4 fact effect affirmance denial incriminating each totally kind specific was: 9 'Plainly, introduction codefendant's) added substantial, perhaps critical, weight Government's form codefendant) thus right confrontation.' 127—128, 10 never gone holding. accused furnishing marihuana minor, partly basis minor himself selling drug. codefendant, claimed remember events believed it. earlier introduced show truth matter asserted, purpose. Green are inverted case. There, unable court underlying facts; here, witness, ever length, favorably facts. 12 Had 'affirmed his,' certainly far worse straits than those did. For attempted confessed crime committed, or, slightly more plausibly, fabricated. would, moreover, abandonment production new explanation presence To sure, statement' truthfulness, claiming, example, coerced, plea bargain. But respondents' futile event will. false, hardly profited try shake If believe false well. short given common respecting favorable possibly produced, unrealistic extreme here hold either 14 proceeds facts, Amendments. Accordingly, judgment remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 15 ordered. 16 Reversed HARLAN, concurring. 18 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join go because became final 476 (1968), avail rule subsequent proceedings. See Mackey 401 667, 675, 1160, 1171, 28 404, 410 (1971) (separate writer). 19 difficult fathom what public policy served opening already overcrowed courts these. Respondent's appeals were, occurred, conducted manner perfectly then-prevailing norms. reversal now compel State once-tried again criminal docket, retried substantially (but stale) else force forego interest enforcing instance laws relating theft disappearance evidence. Conversely, merits, energies expended justify serious interference State's powers enforce ability provide full, fair, prompt hearings forum require most substantial countervailing societal interest. conceivably promoted adjudication contentions urges upon us? Surely, indulging serve function assuring properly apply governing standards. precisely See, e.g., Delli Paoli 352 232, 77 294, 278 (1957). Nor plausibly argued perceive issues likely innocent convicted subjected intolerable abuse prosecutorial rendered fundamentally unfair. 21 rationale imagine entertaining brought prisoners whose convictions become prior decision fair litigate appeal, notion somehow unimpeachably correct decision, infallibly just decisions inconsistent treated made. Even tenable position, notes, actually seeking extension More importantly, me 'infallibility' argument rest nothing fanciful perception ultimate verity always 'came after' 22 Such drastic disruption judicial processes alteration traditional federal-state balance supported persuasive considerations led 1100 'retroactive' application. venture repeat stated Term Mackey, supra: 23 'No one, system, society whole benefited providing shall tentatively jail today, tomorrow day thereafter continued incarceration fresh litigation resolved.' 1179. 24 think unfortunate expended, virtually purpose all, proceeding. address merits contentions, unreservedly resolution them. 25 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. With all deference, asks answers wrong Under admissions used substantive trial.1 faced not, therefore, forbid using O'Neil chose rejected choice: explicitly O'Neil. determined whatever involved may nevertheless decide guilt, instruct not. reviewed extrajudicial Evans, Evans charged, instructions Evans. held, forbade use Evans' statement; 'substantial risk despite contrary, looked determining (Bruton's) guilt,' Bruton's reversed. 126, 1622. Shortly thereafter, second prong Bruton—that instructing juries fact, prevent use—had basis.2 presenting Bruton. Rappe jointly tried officer. Rappe's Roberts; together Rappe, Roberts. As proposition matter, will follow disregard another too great tolerate For, pointed 'If true disregarded reference arise Clause, hypothesis confessor inculpating nonconfessor.' forbids assume tell wipe minds highly damaging, simultaneously incriminate guilt innocence decide. itself determination subvert some telling inevitable result procedure different rules depending solely fortuity separately tried. discrimination forbids. 30 affirm below. event, reach complaint obviously foundation. still need allow purported so.3 Having judgment, bound none. dissent. 31 MARSHALL, 32 dramatically illustrates adoption regulating trials. Here my Brother BRENNAN points recognized very real danger 33 Those argue trials contend trials, often resulting prejudice codefendants, justified saving time, money, energy result. But, shows, much lost protracted results impingement near equal protection. 34 American Bar Association's Project Standards Criminal Justice, Advisory Committee Trial, suggested moves severance intends introduce moving prosecutor) elect between excluded; portion refers deleted; severance.* practice recurring problems eliminated. provides '(i)n prosecutions, enjoy confronted *.' Pointer Texas, 400, 1065, 923; 934. retroactively. Brookhart Janies, 384 86 1245, 314; Barber Page, 390 719, 1318, 255; 1100; Harrington 395 250, 89 1726, 284. People Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518, 47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 407 Pacific 265 (1965); 40 483, 254 501 (1953). Evidence Code, presently effect, operative January 1967. point Stewart: '(C)ertain kinds suspect, yet discount, jurors trusted give minimal logically deserves, give.' 138, 1629 (concurring opinion) (emphasis original). n. supra. Section 2.3 Association Joinder Severance (Approved Draft 1968) provides: 'Severance defendants. '(a) makes determine prosecution offer so, prosecuting attorney following courses: '(i) evidence; '(ii) references '(iii) defendant.'

Classification Label: 0