Legal Document

386 U.S. 18 87 Supreme Court Reporter 824 17 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 705 Ruth Elizabeth CHAPMAN and Thomas LeRoy Teale, Petitioners,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Number 95. Argued Dec. 7 8, 1966. Decided Feb. 20, 1967. Rehearing Denied March 27, See 987, 1283. Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. Arlo E. Smith, San Francisco, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioners, Chapman were convicted in a California state court upon charge that they robbed, kidnaped, murdered bartender. She was sentenced to life imprisonment he death. At time trial, Art I, § 13, State's Constitution provided 'in any criminal case, whether defendant testifies or not, his failure explain deny by testimony evidence facts case against him may be commented counsel, considered jury.' Both petitioners this chose not testify at their attorney prosecuting them took full advantage right under State comment testify, filling argument jury from beginning end with numerous references silence inferences guilt resulting therefrom.1 The trial also charged it could draw adverse petitioners' testify.2 Shortly after but before cases had been on appeal Court, decided Griffin versus California, 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106, which we held California's constitutional provision practice invalid ground put penalty exercise person's compelled witness himself, guaranteed Fifth Amendment made applicable other Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 1489, 12 653. On appeal, 63 Cal.2d 178, 45 Cal.Rptr. 729, 404 Pacific Reporter, 2nd 209, admitting denied federal comments silence, nevertheless affirmed, applying Constitution's harmless-error provision, forbids reversal unless 'the shall error complained has resulted miscarriage justice.'3 We granted certiorari limited these questions: 2 'Where there is violation rule (1) can harmless, (2) if so, harmless case?' 383 956—957, 86 1228, 16 300. 3 In contend both questions are ones law; law should hold denial right, no matter how unimportant, automatically result conviction, without regard harmless; that, wrong this, various cannot, standard, here. I. 4 Before deciding two here—whether ever here harmless—we must first decide governs. application is, course, question where involves only errors procedure law. But suffered rights invasion Amendments, rooted Bill Rights, offered championed Congress James Madison, who told 'independent' courts would 'guardians those rights.'4 Whether conviction crime stand when failed accord constitutionally every bit as much what particular provisions themselves mean, guarantee, have denied. With faithfulness union States, cannot leave formulation authoritative laws, rules, remedies designed protect people infractions federally rights. hesitation saying punished exercising silent—expressly created Federal itself—is which, absence appropriate congressional action, our responsibility fashioning necessary rule. II. 5 urged all errors, regardless circumstances, always deemed harmful. Such holding, correctly point out, require an automatic convictions make further discussion unnecessary. decline adopt such All 50 statutes long ago through its established judgments reversed 'errors defects do affect substantial parties.' 28 Code KF62 2111.5 None rules face distinguishes between rules. federal, serve very useful purpose insofar block setting aside small little, any, likelihood having changed trial. conclude some so unimportant insignificant may, consistent Constitution, requiring conviction. III. 6 harmless-constitutional-error rule, recognize work unfair mischievous results when, example, highly important persuasive evidence, argument, though legally forbidden, finds way into innocence close one. What aim will save good practices while avoiding bad, far possible. emphasizes 'substantial rights' most others. 'a justice,'6 neutralized extent emphasis, perhaps overemphasis, court's view 'overwhelming evidence.'7 prefer approach recent Fahy Connecticut, 375 85, 229, 11 171. There said: 'The reasonable possibility might contributed conviction.' Id., 86—87, 230. Although prior indicated basic fair infraction never treated error,8 statement itself belies belief violate call reversal. same time, however, like statute, intention treat 'affect party. An plainly relevant possibly influenced adversely litigant Fahy, conceived harmless. Certainly error, illegally prejudicial comments, casts someone than person prejudiced burden show It reason original common-law beneficiary either prove injury suffer erroneously obtained judgment.9 difference Connecticut about 'whether conviction' beyond doubt did contribute verdict obtained. We, therefore, more adhere meaning hold, now do, able declare doubt. While appellate ordinarily task test,10 familiar standard courts, believe adoption provide workable although achieving aimed case. IV. 8 Applying foregoing To reach conclusion one need glance prosecutorial compiled record counsel (with minor omissions) set forth Appendix. fairly summarized follows: 9 'Such went motives procurement handling guns purchased Mrs. Chapman, funds lack thereof Teale's possession immediately killing, amount intoxicating liquors consumed defendants Spot Club taverns, circumstances shooting automobile removal victim's body therefrom, fired fatal shots, why used false registration motel shortly letter written several days Teale loaded weapon apprehended, statements apprehension, certain clothing articles personal property shipped Missouri, wore conflicting Chapman's whereabouts preceding killing and, generally, overall commission crime.' Cal.2d, 196, Cal.Rptr., 740, P.2d, 220. 10 Thus, prosecutor's judge's instruction continuously repeatedly impressed intents purposes, drawn favor State—in short, served irrefutable witnesses themselves. And occurred presented reasonably strong 'circumstantial web evidence' petitioners, 197, 220, absent forbidden honest, fair-minded jurors well brought not-guilty verdicts. Under completely impossible us say demonstrated, doubt, convictions. machine-gun repetition rights, calculated version worthless, introduction coerced confession. See, e.g., Payne Arkansas, 356 560, 78 844. Petitioners entitled free pressure unconstitutional inferences. Reversed remanded. APPENDIX TO OPINION THE COURT. Argument Comments Prosecutor Failure Defendants Take Witness Stand 13 'Now, ladies gentlemen, & N Immigration Nationality Decisions don't know weapons first, particularly makes difference, you know, regard, fact, add persons give be, there's represents, here, your minds, Reno, Nevada, October 12th, 1962. you've heard all, once again, tell .22 caliber Vestpocket today both. 15 'This indicate struggle—it body, almost lifeless, dragged left fashion cause shirt article tear, other. Once wasn't out there, there. You stand. individuals information defendants, them, Leroy Chapman. course them. throughout my entire opening reference fact neither seen fit go up, raise hand, take stand, gentlemen exactly occur, details within knowledge know. to—by His Honor's instructions inference couldn't to, subjected themselves, both, cross-examination. Now, is—so mind, again taking none—you are—you anyone else required legal system yourself yourself, goes. 'So, Constitutional avail many things try you, least some, probably position oath concerning. They opportunity. 'Now money habit concealing different departments, because clear up Teale. Ladies that. certainly bogus checks being written, recall that—I don't—we infer, wish cleared had, didn't he—at desperate funds, kind dice, had. 19 Nevada heard, testimony, clearly, going difficulty, really isn't me few little later on, concerned truth anything these—why pistols purchased. Why buy weapons? Well, she occasion pistol stolen her vehicle, automobile, trip across country, remember rely actually hear, gentleman another stolen, needed replace it. two, gentlemen? two. If attacked use each hand assume defend herself, area, besides mentioned before, since surmise exact purchased, room defendants. oath, subject herself cross-examination, then you. chosen this. So therefrom * 20 motive, means, scene, man just minutes shot head three times gun similar People's Exhibit 12. weren't think clearly shows were, scientific we'll talk later. come it? 21 'To serious crimes, gentlemen. consider way, well, didn't, refusal incidentally, 22 'I unreasonable infer drinking beer earlier evening Croce's, it's continued thing, therefore glasses remaining washed, defendants'. inference, whatsoever Club, beer. 23 'So see whichever him, area courtroom defendants; get him. 24 'We doesn't say. last, name, T. L. Rosenthal, Mrs., why, name used. UZV 155—was 156 originally haven't Now handwriting wrote five six. one, even regard. Then consider. 25 Mountain View, View Motel, phony hours correct license down whatever permitted choose interest, say, interest consciousness guilt. 26 this—first thought I'd better let Tom arrived we're south tomorrow'? does mean? great deal readily especially committed robbery kidnapped premises individual ended dead, head. further, thing meant? mean means testified, gotten chair. interested co-defendant, nor admitted letter, meant 'Tom arriving south.' So, final analysis feel proper— 27 'He fugitive justice, knew never—let's it, four F.B.I. agents fellows professional doing opportunity none actual fully loaded, taken testified These knowledge, relevancy importance defendant, incidentally cross-examined. clear, too, loaded. Remember apprehended fleeing is. Basham back in, fingerprinting etc., wanted Lodi, said waive extradition, said, 'They hard proving there.' himself mention Lodi. statement. own conclusion, sure yours triers judges facts, desired He feel, adverse—where inference. 29 'Photographs. You've doctor pointing, picture deceased, head, side general glassess except seem logical experts, found, he'd shot, with, relation death testimony. 30 '* Agent Gilmore notations blood located, found shoes. concerned, shoes belonged St. Joseph, that's know? That's consideration, evidence. 31 'You box lids, concerning sent Howard Smith 2206 Castle Avenue, 11th October, says 1105 Del Norte, Eureka, essentially 11, year, surely 1962, apparently Reno. 32 lot talk, suggestion, want I'll smoke screen, lids came off, underneath Where boxes? self-serving declarations gets cross-examination party giving can't 33 'Thank Your Honor. Counsel interjected he'll I'm adequately express comes. telling tops. he's suggested answer ahead Sperling packed boxes, scene taken. Maybe unusual clothes, getting clothing? shipped. household articles. clothing, basically items time. Couldn't us, though? easily. sitting over anyone, room, knows boxes sent, reasonable. 34 that—is repeat too often, now, physical Otherwise, defense. Fransen happened prosecution described That entirely version. 35 business a—dress. pointed she's wearing frankly, dress examine dry cleaned, purchased—when labels else. done wear blue knit dress, that—she night. 36 'So. suppose hoped something looks 37 'But yet Johnson could, story why? why. hopes wouldn't forget doing, indirectly directly, putting 38 gave night 17th early 18th. Francisco. pick date specifically not—if beware date, beware. says, given stories. Do problems blackouts excessive drinking', 'No.' anybody, contrary honestly situation warrant arrested honesty You're sit trump excuses lie specific dates times. And, contrary, so. 39 everything truth. instances already—I guns, ideas argued referred was. lips Ferguson won't handled others, sees fit. But, purposes number 40 'Originally Dr. Winkler examined 31st, was, forgotten fired, fired. Since happened? amnesia, disassociative state, reaction, look psychiatrically otherwise, seems backed Dillard Road Highway 99 outside cross-examining Sheuerman Croce's. A vague area. Very interesting. in. It's evidence? not. Again, sancitity worthiness lips, hers Why? Here repeat, eyes evaluate Oh yes. Who stand? said. interesting cross-examined, alive perpetration offenses, all. gone times, fine deed perpetrated offenses story, somebody else, speak you—wouldn't thing. benefit evaluating credibility. This done. Monday morning quarterbacking. submit you—you lawyers 'mouthpieces.' rare really, type appellation really. demonstration rancor, speaking Johnson. 'mouthpiece.' 41 'Maybe Adcock's blood, car Atlantic explanation Billy Dean blood. 42 'Mr. again. showed bought No got herself. hearsay, sole determining mind There's Dennis Mack gun, otherwise. Fresno. 'What evidence?' next one—there argument. explain, claims shows, 43 motive murder robbery, set, gain desires lusts forth, gain, deciding—we pulled trigger—we one—Mr. Vowell's admissible against, shouldn't maybe trigger factor Only proceed. nonetheless, too. 44 considering killed, weigh help difficult best judgment light using Adcock, either—it verdict, punishment mete equally distinction helpful trigger, deduce intoxication emotional stress jealousy anger, destroy witness; whereas, respect rid eyewitness. Differences see. consort (sic). pulling trigger. light, been, standpoint explained 46 hasn't presented. character sympathy, statement? talking phase now. get—if background hear task, rest chief 47 chance stand.' 48 STEWART, concurring result. 49 devising violations dissent proceed impression. line cases, involving variety prosecutions, steadfastly rejected notion disregarded 'harmless.' Illustrations principle legion. When involuntary confessions introduced As stated Lynumn Illinois, 372 528, 537, 83 917, 922, confession 'was impermissible doctrine.' accorded recognition Malinski People New York, 324 401, 404, 65 781, 783, 89 L.Ed. 1029; 568, 844, 850; Spano 360 315, 324, 79 1202, 1207, 1265; Haynes Washington, 373 503, 518—519, 1336, 1345, 513; Jackson Denno, 368, 376 377, 1774, 1780, 908. Even 'unnecessary' new infirmity.' supra, U.S., S.Ct., 1346.1 51 refused assistance fundamental absolute allow indulge nice calculations prejudice arising denial.' Glasser 315 60, 76, 62 457, 467, 680. That, indeed, whole Gideon Wainwright, 335, 792, overruling Betts Brady, 316 455, 1252, 1595. critical stage, 'we stop determine resulted.' Hamilton Alabama, 368 52, 55, 82 157, 159, 114; White Maryland, 59, 1050, 193. 52 remuneration based scheme financial result, shown guilty. Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 535, 47S.Ct. 437, 445. community exposed publicity per se conviction; showing Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 351 352, S.ct. 1507, 1515, 600; cf. Rideau Louisiana, 723, 727, 1417, 1419, 663. Estes Texas, 381 532, 542—544, 1628, 1632—1633, 543; 562—564, 1642 1643 (Warren, C. J., concurring); 593—594, 1665 1666 (Harlan, concurring). 53 instructed presumption, overturned, ample apart presumption sustain verdict. Bollenbach 326 607, 614—615, 66 402, 405—406, 90 350. Reversal rested ground, despite valid alternative sustained. Stromberg 283 359, 367—368, 75 1117; Williams North Carolina, 317 287, 292, 207, 210, 279. leading including whitus Georgia, 385 545, 643, 599, purposeful discrimination selection grand petit turns defendant. 54 sure, fungible goods. differing values represent another. foreclose appropriately applied violations.2 Indeed, source disagreement implicit assumption apply indiscriminately violations. 55 break settled procedent promulgate novel 1229.3 harmlesserror proposed dissent, commits case-by-case examination defendant's outcome burdensome obligation hardly qualified discharge. 56 prevent California. decision until afterwords, doctrine prospectivity announced Tehan Staes ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 459, 453, strictly limited. Prosecutors unlikely future, sanction 57 For reasons inappropriate inquire accordingly concur judgment. 58 HARLAN, dissenting. 59 holds harmlessness prosecution, allowance barred Amendment, determined 'necessary rule' imposes revised utilized requires prefers 60 My understanding system, rationale function status lead conclusion. proper constitutes independent adequate Believing dismiss writ. Viator Stone, 336 948, 69 882, 93 1104. 61 key Court's can, think, 'leave rights,' action protective flows seemingly regarded power inherent responsibilities rather itself. appears acknowledge formulations permissible. indicates Congress, impose formulation.1 amounts supervisory issues startling development wholly keeping unsupported found. guarantees invasions 302 319, 149, 288 decisions specifics Rights well. context 653; 1229. thus serves limitation actions lodges 'laws, remedies' Congress. classically Chief Marshall Marbury Cranch 137, 60: opposition constitution; constitution conformably law, disregarding constitution, governs *' 64 Nothing purports powers, affirmative sense McNabb 318 332, 608, 819, courts. id., 340—341, 612—613. Moreover, invoked, reluctant interfere procedural practices. Spencer 554, 648, 606. From Union, formulate 'authoritative issues. primary still rests trials meet requirements. invalid. power, admittedly alternatives choose.2 uniform national requirements permissible broad experimentation genius system. assuming procedures binding protection agree falls category. judicial product reform century. Previously American harshness penalties, followed imposed English efforts Baron Parke, substance Orfield, Criminal Appeals America 190. movement, led authorities Roscoe Pound Learned Hand, allowing discontinue 'necessary' remedy 'to substitute *.' Barron, Practice Procedure 2571, 438. Koteakos 328 750, 759, 1239, 1245, 1557: 's 269 (a provision) legislation grew widespread deep review causes. shortly, judge become review, 'tower above impregnable citadels technicality.' (C)riminal became game sowing reversible record.' 67 Holding, today, special revives unfortunate idea act evaluation proceeding according properly recognized impropriety involved, direction future. committed. challenged direct provisions, whetehr improper significant impact Kotteckos, 'material factors' determinations proceeding, stake outcome, asserted casting balance 762, 1246. factors substantive errs conceiving safeguard rights.3 concern, instead, integrity proceedings whole. 68 above, am validity question. Harmless-error 'work results.' concern expressed dilution doctrines hostility However, barren vanguard safeguards trials,4 dilute guarantees. significantly factors, due process countenance rule.5 applications scrutiny tenability ground. Thompson City Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654; Terre Haute Indianapolis Railroad company Indiana Ketcham, 194 579, 767, 1124; Note, Untenable Non-federal Ground 74 Harv.L.Rev. 1375. doctrine.6 Decision turn instead answers Is guarantee fairness embodied Due Process Clause Amendment? Palko supra. Was instance arbitrarily evade underlying mandate fairness? considered. 70 incorporated constitution. adopted vote 1911 readopted part language allows 'miscarriage justice,' shaped manner ignored. improperly Dorado, 338, 169, 398 361; Sears, 737, 330, 401 938. Nor sufficient support present tainted preclude Patubo, 71 270, 113 Law 1303; Mahoney, 201 Rptr. (West’s) 618, 258 KF135 P2 607. intentional standards. Sarazzawski, 7, 161 934. Thus 'federal declared adjudication parallel instances7 divergence, arises opinions Watson, 818, 299 243, undertook 'final test' 'opinion' reviewing court, effect error; just, reached committed, ordered.' 'it probable favorable appealing reached,' 'must necessarily probabilities mere possibilities; otherwise defeated.' 835—837, 254—255. sound somewhat closer probability becomes esoteric. equated Jacobson, 331, 515, 523, 405 555, 563. 72 Similarly members verbal formulae ranging today's 'reasonable doubt' ability 'say assurance substantially swayed Fiswick 329 211, 218, 224, 228, 91 196. circuit varied expressions. Brown, 321; Feinberg, Cir., 140 592; McMaster, 343 176. 73 Against fairness, striking 'due process.'8 summary events apparent hesitated caused justice warranted see, Keller, 234 Cal.App.2d 395, 432; Sigal, 235 449, 481, posture minimized possible comment. tried club bartender club. last customers murder. Three descriptions matching victim leaving together. ransacked condition forced range .22-caliber beside country road. arrested. Blood floormat vehicle traveling. Other car. (untypable) Similar connected 76 After arrest admissions, amounting confession, fellow prisoner cautioned disregard pleaded guilty, defense merits. called effort establish capacity form requisite intent 'disassociative reaction.' 77 away challenge extensive.9 reasons. First noted convincing unchallenged State. observed notice cried explanation. crucial, confused prosecution's silence. added marginal inevitably innuendo real damaging admissions. Finally whom less strong, keyed mental defect, touched. discriminating concluded 'reasonably probable' erroneous comments. resolution reasonable, constitutional, empirically known workings jury, Kalven Zeisel, Jury, passim, presume pass directly correctness evaluations coming jurisdictions. Juries invariably react differently local predispositions experience factors. manned aware touch affecting trials, best, required, authority ruling admission inadmissible proceedings, fundamentally manifesting defeat decision, end. encompasses more. lower habeas corpus, duty insubstantial instances, entail de novo assessment record. believes among preservation society ranks higher principles federalism, intact maintaining disturbing cuts sharply finality processes; bids place unnecessary courts; opens door excursions judiciary domains. venture hope goes doctrine, manifestation, contained, pushed extremes. 81 respectfully dissent. Excerpts reproduced Appendix opinion. jury: 'It testify. decision. expected if, fails consideration tending indicating unfavorable probable. Cal.Const., Article VI, 1/2: 'No aside, granted, misdirection rejection pleading, procedure, unless, cause, justice.' 'If (the ten amendments) tribunals peculiar guardians rights; impenetrable bulwark Legislative Executive; naturally resist encroachment expressly stipulated declaration rights.' Annals Cong., 439 (1789). 2111 provides: 'On hearing writ Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52(a) 'Any irregularity variance disregarded.' Civ.Proc. 61. statutory provides '(a) fter technical defects, exceptions, Cal.Pen.Code 1258. find justice' petitioner 'other (that) proof overwhelming.' 975 (coerced confession); 799 (right counsel); 749 (impartial judge). generally Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940). Cf. Woodby Service, 276, 483, 362. suggests unique evidentiary have. contradicts notion. addition confessions, admissibility disputed, existed. accepted contention played role quite considerations involved Fourth Amendments. exclusionary balances desirability deterring objectionable police conduct undesirability excluding reliable interests economy dictate 92, 233 (dissenting opinion). Earlier Term, O'Connor 252, 189, basis pausing announces myself, intimate Cases acting expanded Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 1362, 506, promulgated reapportionment plans superficially power. E.g., Election Board, D.C., F.Supp. 323. arise positive necessity equity powers. ordinary problem arise. indeed recognizes, Brother STEWART opinion, dimension proposition supported precedent. Snyder Commonwealth Massachusetts, 291 97, 674; Motes 178 458, 993, 1150; Haines 188 546; Donnelly, 179 227. Prsumably continue evaluated single interpreted today. nothing assessing violation. Cahan, 434, 282 905, Reports, 361. enough employing. process. leaves anomalous piece assessed 'constitutional' depending admittance. dispositive far-reaching matter, passed Some limitations respected essential Clauses stem perceive distinct considerations. types devastating inherently indeterminate 844 (confessions); 95, Harlan, J.); 402 (independently evidence). second official misbehavior simply tolerate effct misconduct. Berger 295 78, 629, 1314 (prosecutorial misconduct). viewed 799, falling category, second. understand STEWART's read content limit undefined category instances. preferable resolve nature attempt discover policy provisions. latter blur fiat upheld Ninth Circuit Sampsell 191 721, attack constitutionality. Hence conducted implication misconduct circumstances.

Classification Label: 0