Legal Document

484 U.S. 554 108 S.Ct. 838 98 L.Ed.2d 951 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.James Joseph OWENS. No. 86-877. Argued Nov. 4, 1987. Decided Feb. 23, 1988. Syllabus As a result of injuries suffered in an attack at federal prison, correctional counselor John Foster's memory was severely impaired. Nevertheless, interview with the investigating FBI agent, Foster described attack, named respondent as his attacker, and identified from photographs. At respondent's Federal District Court trial for assault intent to commit murder, testified, inter alia, that he clearly remembered so identifying respondent. On cross-examination, however, admitted could not remember seeing assailant, any numerous hospital visitors except or whether visitor had suggested assailant. Defense counsel unsuccessfully sought refresh recollection records, including one indicating attributed someone other than Respondent convicted, but Appeals reversed, upholding challenges based on Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment Rule 802 Rules Evidence, which generally excludes hearsay. Held: Neither nor is violated by admission prior, out-of-court identification statement witness who unable, because loss, explain basis identification. Pp. 557-564. (a) The Clause, guarantees only opportunity effective successful satisfied where, here, defendant has full fair bring out witness' bad facts tending discredit testimony. Cf. Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 15, 106 292, 88 15 (1985). This analysis altered fact testimony here involved would traditionally be categorized hearsay, since Clause's requirements are when hearsay declarant present trial, takes oath, subject unrestricted jury observe demeanor. (b) erred holding 801(d)(1)(C)—under prior if "subject cross-examination concerning statement"—did apply loss. A more natural reading cross-examination" when, placed stand, under responds willingly questions. Meaningful within Rule's destroyed assertion often very produced can destroying force statement. Moreover, does its face require "concer[n] statement." Advisory Committee's notes Rule, legislative history, language 804(a)(3)—which, defining "unavailability witness" include memory-loss situations, demonstrates Congress' awareness recurrent evidentiary problem forgetfulness—all support this Rule. Respondent's contention impermissible it creates internal inconsistency Rules—i.e., forgetful deemed 801(d)(1)(C) simultaneously "unavailable" 804(a)(3)—is semantic rather substantive. Because characterizations two were made entirely different purposes, there no requirement expectation they should coincide. 561-564. 789 F.2d 750, (CA 9 1986), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, filed dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 564. KENNEDY, took part consideration decision case. William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Allan Ides, Los Angeles, Cal., Justice SCALIA Court. 1 case requires us determine either Evidence bars 2 * April 12, 1982, Foster, prison Lompoc, California, attacked brutally beaten metal pipe. His skull fractured, remained hospitalized almost month. injuries, When Thomas Mansfield, agent assault, first attempted 19, found lethargic unable attacker's name. May 5, Mansfield again spoke much improved able describe attack. attacker array 3 tried murder 18 U.S.C. § 113(a). recounted activities just before feeling blows head blood floor. He testified assailant during 5th Mansfield. also that, although evidence received hospital, them these convicted sentenced 20 years' imprisonment served consecutively previous sentence. 4 appeal, United States Ninth Circuit considered Evidence.1 By divided vote upheld both (though finding violation harmless error), judgment 750 (1986). We granted certiorari, 479 1084, 107 1284, 94 143 (1987), resolve conflict Circuits significance declarant's loss respect see, e.g., ex rel. Cuyler, 548 460, 462-463 (CA3 1977), 802, Lewis, 565 1248, 1252 (CA2 cert. denied, 435 973, 1618, 56 66 (1978). II 5 gives accused right "to confronted witnesses against him." long been read securing adequate cross-examine adverse witnesses. See, Mattox States, 156 237, 242-243, 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Douglas Alabama, 380 415, 418, 85 1074, 1076, 13 934 (1965). never held founded upon memory, cases expressly left possibility open. 6 In California Green, 399 149, 157-164, 90 1930, 1934-38, 26 489 (1970), we constitutional given preliminary hearing, relying (as independent grounds) proposition Amendment's requirements. declined, decide admissibility same police officer events recall. remanding point, noted state court considered, parties briefed, affected petitioner's violate Clause.2 Id., 168-169, S.Ct., 1940-41. Harlan, scholarly concurrence, stated have reached issue statement, inability "recall underlying extra-judicial recollect circumstances given, consequence." 188, 1951. 7 (1985) (per curiam ), determined expert what formed, formed it. said: 8 "The includes guarantee every called prosecution will refrain giving marred forgetfulness, confusion, evasion. To contrary, defense probe expose infirmities through thereby calling attention factfinder reasons scant weight testimony." 21-22, 295. Our seeking without ammunition, may persuaded "his unreliable memory." 294. distinguished, unresolved Green introduction U.S., 18, concurring judgment, question hand quite close open Green. 23-24, 296. 10 Here squarely presented, agree answer years ago Harlan. "[T]he 'an whatever way, extent, might wish.' " Kentucky Stincer, 482 730, 739, 2658, 2664, 96 631 quoting supra, 20, 294 (emphasis added); Van Arsdall, 475 673, 679, 1431, 1435, 89 674 (1986); Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 73, n. 100 2531, 2543, 65 597 (1980). Fensterer demonstrates, denied testifies current belief reason belief. It sufficient such matters bias, lack care attentiveness, poor eyesight, even (what prime objective see 3A J. Wigmore, 995, pp. 931-932 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1970)) memory. If ability inquire into suffices establish constitutionally requisite belief, cannot recall, why suffice past introduced foundation (current past) effectively elicited, means impugning available. Indeed, difference persuasive impact between "I believe man assaulted me, can't why" don't know I told believed earlier," former seem, anything, damaging hence give rise greater need memory-testing, essential crossexamination. conclude latter example, did former, not. weapons available impugn asserted course always achieve success, guarantee. They are, realistic weapons, demonstrated counsel's summation case, emphasized argued suggestions people visited him hospital. 11 See Notes Fed. Evid. 801(d)(1)(C), 28 App., 717. recognized partial (and somewhat indeterminate) overlap traditional rule Clause. 155-156, 1933-34; id., 173, 1943 (Harlan, concurring). dangers associated inspired Constitution required examined "indicia reliability," Dutton Evans, 400 74, 89, 91 210, 220, 27 213 "particularized trustworthiness," 66, 2539. do think inquiry cross-examination. situation, protections demeanor satisfy 158-161, 1935-36. line drawn falls live once perpetrator crime, earlier effect. 12 Court's jurisprudence suggestive procedures shows special testimony, importance proffered. Manson Brathwaite, 432 98, 97 2243, 53 140 (1977); Neil Biggers, 93 375, 34 401 (1972). not, procedure used way suggestive. There appear our opinions, decline adopt today, principle mere procedures, statements inherently less reliable statements. III urges alternative affirmance defines "of person after perceiving person," "testifies hearing come exclusion prevented being Although concluded (applying purposes determination "more-probable-than-not" standard, "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" standard applicable violation, 684, 1438), argues contrary. 14 seems statement" here. Ordinarily regarded Just prohibition, limitations scope examination assertions privilege undermine process degree meaningful longer exists. But effect loss—which, discussed earlier, specifies statement," more. compelling compared 804(a)(3), "[u]navailability situations matter Congress plainly aware here—witness forgetfulness event—but chose make exception 801(d)(1)(C). 16 choice apparent 801 history. premise safeguards suggestiveness, identifications preferable courtroom identifications. 801, Thus, despite view Committee their use fostered discouraged. Similarly, House Report since, "[a]s time goes by, fade become reliable," minimizing barriers contemporaneous fairer defendants prevents "cases falling recall identity saw crime." H.R.Rep. 94-355, (1975). S.Rep. 94-199, (1975), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 1975, 1092, 1094. judge Senate Reports, directed issue: makes impossible provide in-court testify about details 17 Rules, 804(a)(3). position espoused prominent commentary Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's 801-120 801-121, 801-178 (1987). us, substantive inconsistency, oddity resulting 804(a) convenience reference 804(b) chosen necessary order admit certain categories rubric "Unavailability witness." These absence claims privilege, refusals obey court's testify, physical mental illness Had instead witness, circumstances" definition section excluding category "hearsay." exists subparagraphs 801(d)(1). seem strange, assert avoid proceeding inconsistent 801(d)(1)(A), simply asserting related. Murphy, 696 282, 283-284 (CA4 1982), 461 945, 103 2123, 77 1303 (1983). like one, presents verbal curiosity while Quite obviously, For stated, hold neither remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 19 So ordered. KENNEDY 21 whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 22 month-long hospitalization, apparently singular moment lucid recollection, selected James Owens' photograph possible suspects informed Agent pipe morning 1982. subsequently died doubt barred repeating trial. Fortunately, survived beating; previously such. profound therefore, rendered conduit stale inscrutable been, yet nevertheless concludes afforded him, unadorned reiteration deprive confront him. my view, today reduces confrontation purely procedural protection, markedly hollow that. criminal engage "affor[d] trier satisfactory evaluating truth [a] 161, 1936, dissent. 23 duty California. beat repeatedly upper body pipe, inflicting permanently disabling short-term spent nearly month recuperating semiconsciousness. wife daily, none While Mansfield's visit conducted "vivid." App. 28. particular, recalled telling Mansfield: "[A]fter hit looked down floor, jammed finger chest, said, 'That's enough that,' alarm button." 31. 24 statements, accurate. addition, choosing those showed dispute, seen attacker. Nor officials persons ever medical behalf explained most attributable gradual selective caused injuries. 25 principal stand December 1983—that virtually nothing candidly idea Instead, sole accuser who, trial: approximately months following affirming, explaining, elaborating surely completely testimonial death, have. asserts "realistic weapons" ante, 560, claim elicited information enabled evaluate trustworthiness reliability suggests explore "lack attentiveness," "bad memory," name 559, precluded inquiries: actually visitors, let alone shed light accuracy 1982 assault; day felt true. below found, "[c]learly, three surrounding identifications—misperception failure memory—could mitigated [respondent]." 759 (CA9 1986). short, demonstrate obstacle unsubstantiated least where oath subjected According "guarantees wish." Ante, 559 (citations omitted; quotation marks emphasis original). reaches follows naturally cases, protects defendant's witnesses, how futile questioning be. own recitation law reveals, affirmed ensures "an cross-examination." 295, curiam) Nelson O'Neil, 402 622, 629, 1723, 1727, 29 222 (1971) (Confrontation bar "the benefit [declarant]") 159, 1935 (introduction "as assured trial") added). rejected notion effectiveness measured terms ultimate never, until equated pose Rather, mission "advanc[ing] practical concern truth-determining trials," touchstone affords 'the . statement.' Ibid. (quoting 1936). 2542, (1980) unavailable "afforded (citation omitted));1 Mancusi Stubbs, 408 204, 216, 92 2308, 2315, 33 293 (1972) (same). Where exists, permits bear reliability." 220. dispensing relies exclusively involve concerned scientific theories formulating contended impeach validity conclusions, invites find endorsement theory maximized level afford assessing offered. expert's self-impeaching, satisfied. worked change jurisprudence, purports discern all admissible, provided witness. From derives corollary equally Accordingly, asserts, draws "between effect." 560. obvious shortcoming reasoning, course, announced blanket rule: lapse follow therefore held—that characterized. Certainly 1983 impugned otherwise cast particularly uncontradicted explaining sustained. Under then, hypothetical depend seriously impedes lacks assess proffered evidence. Whatever said hypothetical, clear near total assessment thus 30 extent ruling motivated fear contrary door countless groundless. begin with, rare indeed. More typically, suffer (or claim) recollect, suggest bias ulterior motive; threshold "effectiveness" established decisions, self-interest claiming complete Even relatively few still admissible bears Finally, assessments undertaken courts deciding common questions, prove unduly burdensome.2 event, inconvenient troublesome, burdens flow commitment places value individual liberty efficient judicial administration. 31 whose evasion, 'is cross-examination.' 558 22, 296). stressed last Term, "is essentially 'functional' designed promote truth-finding functions trial." 737, 2663, Owens recollections, "greatest legal engine invented discovery truth," 158, 1935, stood helpless technology concluding rights presence courtroom, formalism. ask questions dead proves be, argued, below, though challenge. That substantially technically correct. arguments accepted, render inadmissible hearsay; Part III, ultimately determines applicable. remand, Supreme People Cal.3d 981, Cal.Rptr. 494, P.2d 998, dism'd, 404 (1971). indicated determining unnecessary consider "surmount[ed] some inevitably nebulous 'effectiveness,' "in extraordinary 'effectiveness' required." 73 2543 12. ruling, dispense minima effectiveness, cross-examined attorney performance ineffective collateral habeas corpus proceedings. context, obviously refers attorney's performance, impediments created footnote appended sentence affirming affording author Roberts twice confirmed 9, 2663 (1987) (BLACKMUN, J.) (a precluding access "may hinder [the] Clause") original); Pennsylvania Ritchie, 480 39, 63, 1, 989, 1004, 40 concurring) (Fensterer "[did] imply [of cross-examination] place Clause"). adequacy identical deems if, she [prior] notwithstanding 804(a)'s unavailability, itself, regardless 561—564. construction renders unconstitutional require, 804(a), 801-121 (endorsing 801(d)(1)(C)).

Classification Label: 0