Legal Document

422 U.S. 853 95 Supreme Court Reporter 2550. 45 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 593 Clifford HERRING, Appellant,v.State of NEW YORK. Number 73—6587. Argued Feb. 26, 1975. Decided June 30, Syllabus A total denial the opportunity for final summation in a nonjury criminal trial as well jury deprives accused basic right to make his defense, and New York statute granting every judge power deny such before rendition judgment denied assistance counsel guaranteed by Sixth Amendment Constitution applied against Fourteenth. Pp. 856-865. 43 A.D.2d 816, 351 N.Y.S.2d 368, vacated remanded. Diana Atlantic Steele, City, appellant. Norman C. Morse, Staten Island, N.Y., Gabriel I. Levy, appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 law confers upon any evidence judgment. N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 320.20 (3)(c) (1971), McKinney's Consol.Laws, chapter 11—A.1 In case us we are called assess constitutional validity that law. 2 * The appellant was brought Richmond County, charges attempted robbery first third degrees possession dangerous instrument.2 He waived jury. 3 began on Thursday, and, after certain preliminaries, balance day most Friday were spent prosecution. complaining witness, Allen Braxton, testified had approached him outside home Island housing project at about six o'clock evening September 15, 1971, asked money. said when he refused this demand, swung knife him. On cross-examination, appellant's lawyer impeach credibility demonstrating inconsistencies between Braxton's testimony other sworn statements Braxton previously made.3 only witness prosecution police officer who arrested complaint Braxton. reported alleged incident him, appellant, confronted later evening, story been working Taylor time offense. then found small pocket.4 4 At close prosecution, court granted defense motion dismiss charge instrument ground too qualify under state adjourned two-day weekend. 5 Proceedings did not actually resume until following Monday afternoon. Donald Taylor, employer. recalled seeing job premises 5:30 p.m. took stand story. refrigerator place employment during offense, further former neighbor, threatened several occasions 'fix' refusing give money wine drugs. 6 conclusion made charges. This denied. requested 'be heard somewhat facts.' replied: 'Under new statute, is discretionary, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions choose hear summations.' thereupon guilty degree, subsequently sentenced serve an indeterminate term imprisonment with maximum four years. conviction affirmed without intermediate appellate court.5 Leave appeal Appeals An here, noted probable jurisdiction. 419 893, 171, 42 137. II 7 guarantees all prosecutions rights 'speedy public trial,' 'impartial jury,' notice 'nature cause accusation,' be 'confronted' opposing witnesses, 'compulsory process' 'Assistance Counsel.'6 These fundamental extended defendant through Fourteenth Amendment.7 8 decisions have given these provisions narrowly literalistic construction. More specifically, has understood mean there can no restrictions function defending accord traditions adversary factfinding process constitutionalized Amendments. For example, Ferguson versus Georgia, 365 570, 81 756, 783, held constitutionally invalid that, while permitting unsworn statement jury, prevented from eliciting defendant's direct examination. Similarly, Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 92 1891, 32 358, unconstitutional restricted decide 'whether, couse presenting should take stand.' Id., 613, 1895. thus meaning ensures participate fully fairly process. 9 There doubt closing argument element trial. Accordingly, it universally matter how strong may appear presiding judge.8 issue considered less often context so-called bench But overwhelming weight authority, both federal courts, holds defense.9 10 One many cases so holding Yopps State, 228 Md. 204, 178 Reporter, 2nd 879 (1962). case, indicted burglary, tried admitted being vicinity but involvement crime. testimony, announced guilty. Defense objected, stating wished present facts. question involved, therefore counsel's would change mind. Maryland court's refusal permit violated State Federal Constitutions: 11 'The Constitutional necessarily includes proper applicable favor, however simple, clear, unimpeached, conclusive seem, unless argument, or within issues discretion right.' 207, A.2d, 881. 12 widespread recognition summary trier facts, whether finds solid support history. 16th 17th centuries, notions compulsory process, confrontation, their infancy, essence English Crown. Whatever procedural protections lacking, absence debate factual legal raised case.10 As developed,11 system's commitment neither discarded nor diluted. Rather, reform procedure effect shifting primary trial, contrast 'fragmented' typical earlier common law.12 13 It hardly questioned serves sharpen clarify resolution fact case. parties position respective versions whole. Only they argue inferences drawn point out weaknesses adversaries' positions. And last clear chance persuade reasonable guilt. See re Winship, 397 90 1068, 25 368. 14 very premise our system justice partisan advocacy sides will best promote ultimate objective convicted innocent go free. which end basically aspect could more important than finally marshal each side submission 15 say arguments must uncontrolled even unrestrained. great latitude controlling duration limiting scope summations. limit terminate continuation repetitive redundant. ensure does stray unduly mark, otherwise impede fair orderly conduct respects broad discretion. generally R. Anderson, Wharton's Criminal Law Procedure 2077 (1957). Cf. American Bar Association, Project Standards Justice, Prosecution Function 5.8, Pages 126—129, 7.8, 277—282 (App.Draft 1971). 16 justification empowers absolutely all. conceivable interest served expediency. Yet difference concise persuasive spell difference, defendant, liberty unjust imprisonment.13 17 Some simple—open shut—at evidence. surely will, words Jackson, 'likely leave (a) just where him.'14 surely, correct premature misjudgment avoid erroneous verdict. way identify accurately be, counsel.15 18 illustrative. three-day interrupted interval two days—a period judge's memory dimmed, conscientious note-taker been. trial's day, might usefully pointed conflict witnesses concerning offense.16 also stressed inconsistencies, elicited statements.17 reasonably argued employer entitled greater who, according because personal differences past. know appropriate affected assessment solely fact. determination made, counsel, view favorable him.18 19 denying authority its guarantees. remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 20 ordered. 21 Judgment 22 REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 23 curious What challenge gives courts 'parties' deliver summations, transformed into exploration although one doubts competently represented throughout resulted conviction. Today's opinion, deriving relating expands holdings 783 (1961), 358 (1972). three instances presume, Court's analytical approach, regardless intrinsic importance enforced prior party preparation presentation defense. 24 think instance Frankfurter's separate apropos: 'This right-to-counsel case.' U.S., 599, S.Ct., 772. crucial wishes evidence, otherwise—wishes summation. Of course do suggest basis, least particular cases, Due Process Clause Amendment. id., 598—601, 771—772 (opinion Frankfurter, J.); supra, 618, 1897—1898 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). framework, resulting prophylactic rule, wrongly employed thought Faretta California, 806, 2525, 562, recanted approach Brooks. concluded Amendment, Right-to-Counsel 'constitutionalizes it.' Ante, 818, 2533. informed constitutionalizes 'in fact-finding process.' 857. Not content merely contradict entitlement judicial depends retain states 'of course, same argument' available those exercise counsel. 864, n. 18. To complete confusion, explain latter ipse dixit, cite case—Faretta. 26 long recognized assuring 'fundamental fairness' proceedings. See, e.g., Lisenba 314 219, 236, 62 280, 289—290, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941); Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 90—91, 265, 266, 67 543 (1923). Throughout history fairness case-by-case reflecting elements vary circumstances observed Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 116—117, 54 330, 336, 78 674 (1934): 27 'Due requires shall fair, relative, absolute concept. . set act tyranny others.' 28 Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 1507, 600 (1966); Spencer Texas, 385 554, 87 648, 606 (1967); Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 93 1038, 35 297 (1973); Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 94 396, 38 368 (1973). 29 However some engaged 'specific incorporation,' whereby Bill Rights States. cited ante, 857 7. making decision provision incorporated, guided deemed essential fairness—an compelled if remain true orientation Clause. Oliver, 333 257, 270—271, 68 499, 506, 682 (1948) (public trial); Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 155—158, 88 1444, 1450—1452, 491 (1968) (jury Pointer 380 400, 403—404, 85 1065, 1067—1068, 923 (1965) (confrontation); Washington 388 14, 17—19, 1920, 1922—1923, 1019 (1967) (compulsory process); Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 342, 83 792, 795, 799 (1963) (appointed counsel). once determined incorporated States, abandoned considerations fairness. Incorporation, effect, results establishment strict circumstances. part probability unfairness denigration countenanced judgments reflect similar Constitution's Framers regard Government. 30 Beyond specified Rights, however, understand basis abandoning myriad rules practices governing necessary assure Obvious examples introduction testing as, think, rule summations trials. Such matters specifically dealt text Constitution, subject uniform application likelihood observed. appropriate, frequently necessary, judges accorded considerable discretion, review abuse-of-discretion standard ultimately, inquiry 31 prime example why trials thoroughly inappropriate. unlike notes experienced judging relevance proved obtain conceptually factually simple one, involving believe victim, despite defendant.1 permitted summarize occasion State's That faith familiarity with, ability organize, shown transcript summation: '(MR. ADAMS:) Do you want me extensively Judge? Or on, rather lengthy subsequently, 33 'THE COURT: anything say. 34 'MR. ADAMS: All right. Judge, here here. Firstly, Judge. numerous bore reading that. copius it, am sure fresh top questionable complainant, happened, complainant. 'An checked man time. definite defendant. law, here.' App. 66 (emphasis added). 36 denied, much refresh matters.2 referred today suggests attention 864. Finally, conducted fairminded fashion, arbitrarily prevent expected understanding evidenced dismissal count over vigorous protests 37 theoretical conviction, practical outcome nothing. conducting moot court; sitting finder single witness. No advocate insist indicated belief assistance. Trial insist, claim sustained urged truth received read otherwise. instead establishes circumstances, tagging onto rights. thereby conveniently avoids difficulties unable characterize fundamentally unfair, expense ignoring logical difficulty adorning characteristics themselves fairness.3 39 nature creates genesis. Apparently nothing pro forma observance, since 'must latitude' determine what 'reasonable' becomes redundant, strays 'unduly' mark. 'In repects discretion.' 862. is, seconds, minimal free so. If 'there (those beneficial), counsel,' 863, equally cannot continued repetitive, useless argument. event, quickly become framed again standards governed along—whether actions deprived fair.4 40 By propagating summation—despite right's lack textual inability conclude matter—the furthered practice reviewing piecemeal fashion. reversal based stage carefully claimed permeated entire proceeding disregarding fair. 41 derives either logic professes apply. Since reverses obtained, dissent. Section 320.20(3)(c) provides: grants permission party, grant also. first.' contrast, explicitly 'closing statement' civil N.Y.Civ.Prac.Rule 4016 (1963). N.Y. Penal §§ 110.00/160.15, 110.00/160.05, 265.05 (1975), 40. cross-examination demonstrated inconsistencies: First, running house evade look back see gone; grand entering house, looked gone. Second, knifeblade shiny; remember shiny not. Third, 'soft' voice; stated request 'kind loud.' Fourth, blade once; felony filed crime, 'a couple times.' major inconsistency officer's walking down street 6:45 came across searched 6:30 p.m., separated, hour seen opposite Broadway. Thus together separated next saw 7:30 certified affirming judgment, rejected claims: 'Upon herein, presented passed question, namely, relator's Amendments paragraph (c) subdivision CPL refuse none violated.' prosecutions, enjoy speedy impartial (,) accusation; him; obtaining Assistance Counsel defence.' Klopfer North Carolina, 386 213, 988, (speedy Cole Arkansas, 196, 514, 644 (notice accusation); S.Ct 799, Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 2006, 530 (assistance Jackson 239 Ala. 38, 193 Southern KF135 S69 417 (1940); Yeldell 100 570 (1894); People Green, 99 Rptr. California (West’s) 564, Pacific P2 231 (1893); Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518 (1880); Hall 119 Fla. 160 511 (1935); Williams 60 Ga. 367 (1878); Porter Ga.App. 770, 65 Southeastern S6 814 (1909); Gilbert, Idaho 210, 142 584 (1943); McMullen, 300 Ill. 383, 133 Northeastern N59 328 (1921); Lynch Ind. 541 (1857); Verry, Kan. 416, 838 (1887); Sizemore Commonwealth, 240 Ky. 279, South Western (1931); Cancienne, 50 La.Ann. 1324, 321 (1898); Wingo Miss. 311 (1884); Page, Mo. 257 (1855); Tighe, Mont. 327, 71 (1903); Shedoudy, N.M. 516, 118 280 Marcelin, 260 560 (1965); Hardy, 189 N.C. 128 152 (1925); Weaver Ohio St. (1874); Rogoway, Or. 601, 987 (1907), rehearing, 611, 234 (1905); Stewart 117 Pa. 378, 370 Ballenger, 202 S.C. 155, Eastern 175 Word Va. 743 (1831); Mayo, Wash. 540, 251 (1906); Seattle Erickson, 55 675, 104 1128 (1909). treatise general follows: himself seem court.' Walls, 443 1220 (CA6 1971); Thomas District Columbia, App.D.C. 179, 424 (1937); ex rel. Spears Johnson, 327 F.Supp. 1021 (ED Pa.1971), rev'd grounds, 463 1024 (CA3 1972); Wilcox Pennsylvania, 273 Pa.1967); Floyd So.2d 105 (Fla.1956); Olds 465 (1821); (1962); Thomas, 390 Mich. 93, 210 776 Decker 113 512, 150 74 Commonwealth McNair, 208 Pa.Super. 369, 222 599 Gambrell, 450 290, 301 596 Anselin 72 Tex.Cr.R. 17, Southwestern S79 713 (1913); Walker 300, 110 578 250, 61 (1937). Collingsworth 173 695, 697 (CA5 1949); Hollingsworth, La. 106 662 (1925). Manske, 399 176, 77 164 (1948). Berger, 288 47, 975 (1918); Casterlow 256 214, 267 552 (1971); Reed 232 68, 111 661 (1953); Lewis 442 (1912). Stephen described 'long prisoner Crown.' Judge Stephen, History England 326 (1883). fuller description period, 325—326, 350. Will. 3, (1695); Anne, Statutes-at-Large 2, 9, (1701); 4, 114, (1836). 10, 349. Colonies, defendants' occurred, practice, right, apparently gave sum up Zephaniah Swift, early colonial Connecticut, wrote: 'When exhibition closed, attorney opens follow(s), closes chief sums candid manner, state, .' Z. System Laws Connecticut 401 (1796). With lesser degree certainty, modern scholar concludes capital offenses Virginia, likely, certain, Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Rankin, General Colonial Virginia 101 (1965). England, 1865, represented, express statutory recognition: '(U)pon Prisoners them, defended Prisoner Evidence respectively.' Act Vict., 18, 2. remains England. Halsbury's 777, 422—423 (3d ed. 1955). T. Butler M. Garsia, Archibold's Pleading, Practice Cases, 558 (37th 1969). Cox Cr.Cas. 171 (1875); Wickham, Cr.App.R. 199 (1971) (noted 1971 Crim.L.Rev. 233). We deal Nothing implying existence oral Struggle Judicial Supremacy (1941). contention insufficient rests judge, training experience, likely clearly, rendering superfluous, recognize illumination helpful, find unpersuasive. expertise, enhance render reasoning infallible. Moreover, respect, Powell observed, 'collective judgment' 'tends compensate individual short-comings furnishes assurance reliable decision.' Powell, Jury Crimes, Lee L.Rev. 1, (1966). tries presumably reach verdict deliberation contemplation, stimulation viewpoints inherent collegial decision-making supra. exercised own has, 562. employer's issue. vague times garage, garage located 1/2 blocks scene 76, 86. colloquy respectfully move to—make motions, counts, second indictment grounds failed prima facie case; prove parcel crimes charged beyond Motion short recess deliberate, Well, facts? Under CLERK: Remand.' 92. While Court, 862, presents variety supporting wisdom desirability trials, them impress rising level They substantial merit Legislature, relevant duty perform. flourish ('no important'), obvious hyperbole uttered disregard selection strategy attempts exclude unconstitutionally obtained unlikely post-trial briefing adequate substitute summation, meets concerns expresses newly

Classification Label: 0