Legal Document

442 U.S. 62 99 Supreme Court Reporter 2132 60 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 713 Harry PARKER, Petitioner,v.James RANDOLPH et al. Number 78-99. Argued March 20, 1979. Decided May 29, Syllabus Respondents were convicted, after a joint trial in Tennessee court, of murder committed during the commission robbery. None respondents took witness stand, and their oral confessions, found by court to have been freely voluntarily given, admitted into evidence through police officers' testimony. Respondent Pickens' written confession was also over his objection that it had obtained violation rights under Miranda versus Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. The instructed jury each could be used only against defendant who gave not considered as codefendant's guilt. Ultimately, upheld convictions, holding admission respondents' confessions did violate rule Bruton States, 391 123, 88 1620, 20 476, which held defendant's Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment violated admission, at trial, codefendant take stand. subsequently writs habeas corpus Federal District Court, introduction respondent Miranda. Appeals affirmed. Held : judgment is affirmed Pickens reversed other respondents. Pp. 69-77;77-81 (opinion REHNQUIST, J.); BLACKMUN, J.). 1 6th Cir., 575 Reporter, 2nd 1178, part part. 2 Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion with respect Parts & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions III, concluding since grant certiorari limited issue, no occasion pass on merits ruling violated. Pacific KF135 P2 76-77. 3 joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, STEWART, WHITE, concluded, Part II, proper limiting instructions infringe right confrontation secured Fourteenth Amendments. 69-76. 4 (a) In Bruton, nontestifying "devastating" effect nonconfessing case. Introduction such incriminating extrajudicial statements will seldom, if ever, same consequences has himself confessed. constitutional cross-examination protected far less practical value confessed crime than one consistently maintained innocence. Pp.72-73. 5 (b) Nor does natural "motivation shift blame onto others," recognized render codefendants "inevitably suspect," require application when incriminated corroborated heaping himself. P.73. 6 (c) bar every relevant statement declarant simply because some way incriminates defendant. And an instruction directing consider its source generally sufficient avoid offending implicated right. Pp.73-74. 7 (d) When own properly before jury, here, possible prejudice resulting from jury's failure follow court's so or "vital" confessing departure general allowing instructions. P.74-75. 8 BLACKMUN would find inapplicable interlocking are involved. Rather, even where overlap degree, he analysis indicated then determine whether error harmless beyond reasonable doubt. On facts this case, concludes any clearly 77-81. 9 Michael E. Terry, Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner. 10 Walter L. Evans, Memphis, 11 (Parts III) together (Part II), WHITE joined, announced Court. 12 476 (1968), robbery conviction confession. Because taken stand thus cross-examined, deprived Amendment. issue us case whetherBruton requires reversal "interlocks" supports codefendant. We hold not. 13 * convicted sentenced life imprisonment. cast characters playing out scenes led up fatal shooting come pen Bret Harte.1 story began June 1970, William Douglas, professional gambler Las Vegas, Nev., arrived calling Ray Blaylock carrying gun deck cards. It ended evening July 6, Douglas shot killed Memphis apartment. 14 Testimony state showed Woppy Gaddy, promised cut Douglas' take, arranged game chance between Robert Wood, sometime gambler. Unwilling trust outcome contest entirely luck skill, marked cards, game's end Wood money separated. A second encounter two men yielded similar results, grew suspicious good fortune. order how cheating, brought third acquaintance named Tommy Thomas, reputation being "pretty poker player." Unknown however, Thomas' father close friends; predictably, threw lot purposefully lost $1,000, reported clean. nonetheless left convinced cheated intent recouping now considerable losses. He explained situation brother, Joe decided relieve ill-gotten gains staging upcoming fourth game. 15 At juncture Randolph, Pickens, Hamilton entered picture. To carry staged robbery, enlisted Hamilton, employees, latter turn associated Randolph Pickens. sat down final 1970. Thomas present room spectators. During course game, armed .38-caliber pistol automatic shotgun; response unexpected development pulled derringer tell move Before arrived, reached Wood. Moments later, broke apartment door, gathered cash table, gang five fled night. apprehended involvement crime. brothers jointly tried Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-2402 (1975).2 Each admitting but claiming self-defense. described method cheating cards complicity fraud testified substance produced Douglas. 17 positively identify them, although three involved two. State's rested primarily testimony several officers Police Department.3 signed 694 (1966). 18 Criminal they guilty felony scene and, alternatively, Court's decision Bruton. reinstated convictions. "each either words actions demonstrated knowledge 'killing may necessary,' " App. 237, agreement participate rendered them liable felony-murder statute death. disagreed violated, emphasizing inculpated neither Here, contrast, "interlocking inculpatory confessions" "clearly each, crucial time, location, felonious activity, awareness overall plan scheme." 245. Accordingly, concluded: "The fact precludes material aspects." Ibid., quoting State Elliott, 524 South Western 473, 477-478 (Tenn.1975). 19 thereafter granted applications corpus, uncounseled supra. Circuit affirmed, respondent, considering confession, "not overwhelming compel verdict . ." 1182 (1978). frankly acknowledged conflicts decisions Second "[w]here heard [interlocking] .." ex rel. Catanzaro Mancusi, 404 296, 300 cert. denied, 397 942, 90 956, 25 123 (1970). Accord, Stanbridge Zelker, 514 45, 48-50, 423 872, 96 138, 46 102 (1975); Duff 452 1009, 1010 (1971), 406 932, 92 1807, 32 134 (1972). resolve conflict.4 439 978, 563, 59 649 II Delli Paoli 352 232, 77 294, 278 (1957), confessed, hearsay objection. Concluding "it reasonably follow" declarant, constitute reversible error. Little more decade expressly overruled States. defendants Evans postal trial. Although inspector allowed testify orally having judge Evans' competent inadmissible therefore determining Bruton's 21 This conviction, noting despite admittedly clear instruction, "the added substantial, perhaps critical, weight Government's form subject cross-examination." U.S., 127-128, S.Ct., 1623. denied confrontation. reasoned many cases can judge's disregard evidence, 22 "there contexts risk not, cannot, great, vital defendant, human limitations system cannot ignored. Such context presented powerfully codefendant, stands accused side-by-side deliberately spread Not incriminations devastating credibility inevitably suspect, accomplices do weigh carefully given motivation others. unreliability intolerably compounded alleged accomplice, tested cross-examination. threats fair directed." Id., 135-136, 1627-1628 (citations footnotes omitted). 23 One year decided, rejected notion erroneous introduced automatically otherwise valid conviction. See Harrington California, 395 250, 89 1726, 284 (1969). cases, guilt overwhelming, prejudicial insignificant comparison, doubt error.5 Petitioner urges reasoning apply confessions. Alternatively, contends all deemed agree petitioner Amendments Constitution, prefer slightly broader posed 24 adding "substantial, case." 128, go untested indeed, unanswered altogether unless waives Fifth privilege takes impact upon has, insofar concerned, innocence beginning too great cured instruction. said, confession—"probably most probative damaging him," id., 139, 1630 (WHITE, J., dissenting)—is knowledgeable unimpeachable information about past conduct," 140, dissenting), scarcely imagine defense Thus, character referred Bruton—the "constitutional cross-examination," 137, 1628—has Successfully impeaching likely yield small advantage whose unchallenged. 136, 1628, conferred safeguard ensure fairness accuracy criminal trials, see Dutton 400 74, 89, 91 210, 219, 27 213 (1970), reach divorced contemplated Constitution. assumption underlying juries judge. Were so, pointless instruct appellate reverse improperly instructed. never made See, e. g., 80, 215; Mattox 156 240-244, 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). numerous Court.6 26 When, chosen guilt, accepted adequate Clause. Under circumstances, "practical system," supra, 135, 1627, override theoretically sound premise But we believe scales tip way. instructions.7 conforms requirements Constitution.8 reversed. III granting relief additional ground (1966), sought review ruling, our issue. Appeals' ruling. 28 Affirmed 29 POWELL consideration 30 concurring judgment. 31 join principal concur affirming reversing Appeals. For me, existed codefendants, was, refrain joining because, read it, abandons harmless-error previously applied circumstances adopts per se situation. 33 course, severe, "is went alleviate resultant substantial threat designed protect. 136-137, 1628. 34 (1969), sufficiently "harmless doubt," Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 705 (1967). Reversal then, required merely existence Schneble Florida, 405 427, 1056, 340 (1972), concerning partially corroborating 35 appears me depart approach involving "will 'devastating' Bruton." Ante, 73. Similarly, finds suspect" little evidence. Ibid. holds i. e., cross-examination, "has innocence." "that requirements" 75. 36 departed heretofore cases. unclear lead Chapman; harmless, devastating. unwilling traditional straightforward -error Neither interlock degree ensure, matter, substantially curative. only. Or cover portion events internally inconsistent, implicating confessor's very well serve notwithstanding is, extent, interlocking. fully recognize interlocking-confession Even adopt rigid forecloses weighing unfairly prejudiced Where prejudiced, mere caused ought important interests protects. 37 possible, new result analysis. Instead focusing courts forced, instead, inquire permit conclusion apply. suppose making determination make harmlesserror anyway, another step process. 38 Unfortunately, mandates inquiry interlock. argued fact, Brief 34-38. opinion, assumes comes saying long type placed without actually extent thereof. If willing abandon factual accompanies determination, should ready, least, substitute there genuine casts right, completely aside. add error, my view, harmless. Negro males identified number witnesses indeed killing. confessor Woods' rob largely overlapped cumulative Corroborative tentatively Negroes received share proceeds Hamilton's immediately outside strongly these him, possibility contributed conviction." 432, 1060. therefore, required. 40 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 41 As makes clear, ante, 77-78, differentiate (1) (2) committed, remote characterize rejects first conclusion, area disagreement him narrow. his, concurrent findings here harmless1 preclude reaching different kind Berenyi Director, 385 630, 635, 666, 669, 656; Graver Tank Mfg. company Linde Air Products Co., 336 271, 275, 69 535, 537, 93 672. 2142-2143. 42 My plurality wider prompts extended remarks. above—that Without purporting modify precluding use admissions reaches attempting create vaguely defined exception repudiate trial.2 43 ever adopted seriously undercut arbitrarily selected class Indeed, adoption squarely overrule holdings four Bruton.3 44 Evidence "extrajudicial guilt" "stands unchallenged," 74,73, acceptable reason depriving confront him.4 arguing contrary, striving "to issue" "in form" parties felt necessary dispose 72, necessarily relies assumptions. Both erroneous. First, ability highly invariably increased Second, unchallenged equally reliable. Aside quotations dissent assumptions nothing force assertions. infinite variability (whether codefendants), juries, those assertions untenable. hypothetical example instructive. 45 Suppose prosecutor items tending prove X Y assassinating public figure. tape televised interview describing detail planned executed Items involve circumstantial association Y, shared hostility victim, expressed wish early demise—evidence itself might insufficient convict X. Item drinking partner, former cellmate, spouse recalls approximate time nor Y's while immunized undoubtedly avoid. STEWART's characteristically concise explanation rationale demonstrates, plainly X's accuser.5 Nevertheless, plurality's remarkable assumption, X—and right—would subsequent ambiguous statement. judgment, dubious corroboration enhance, rather reduce, danger rely evaluating SeeUnited Bozza, 365 206, 215 (CA2 1966) (Friendly, J.), quoted n. 13, infra. am wrong, conclude prosecutor's reliance item obviate harm flowing 1. 47 dubiousness example—as ambiguous, incomplete, coercive influences, product well-recognized often untrustworthy "urge confess"6—illustrates inaccuracy assumption. true convincing Brown 411 223, 1565, 208; 340. convincing. Moreover, inherently reliable kinds fingerprints, photographs, eyewitness Yet, types absolute accord almost apply.7 48 loss understand relevance "challenge" say dispel dramatically damning Y's. Furthermore, apart penalized exercising (in introduce evidence) away one's accuser), Jackson, 390 570, 1209, why enhances reliability self-impeaching "confession" hypothesized above. Cf. Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 343-344, 98 1091, 1097, 55 319 (STEVENS, dissenting). 49 short, logic commend proposed save, perhaps, purpose limit irrelevant set it. context, factors relied support proposition remotely advocated case—that trustworthy admissible defendants, much. Conceivably, surrounding enhance justified situations.8 defeat fundamental accusers, surely insist strong showing particular impossibility, least difficulty, accusers available cross-examination.9 And, prosecution hard pressed light try separately afford immunity other's Kastigar 441, 1653, 212. 50 Absent admissibility codefendants' respondents, controlling question must realistic assume followed answer affirmatively. doing, much said impressive array judicial scholarly authorities addressed 51 sees supplied "crucial [the jury] judge." argued, "numerous Court" regarding citing Opper 348 84, 75 158, 101, Blumenthal 332 539, 68 248, 154. advanced just forcefully overruled—a incidentally, "numerous" resurrects favor 242, 300, 278. What reasoning—despite contrary assertions, 70-73—is applicable context: 52 "[T]here 53 Rather falling back once discredited decisions, observations sort jurists like Felix Frankfurter, Learned Hand,10 Wiley Rutledge,11 Jackson,12 Henry Friendly,13 scholars Wigmore Morgan.14 think theirs, odds obey command ignore confession15— confessed—are stacked Wood's, ultimately own, downfall Gaddy. contests this, player confused insubstantial. 54 respectfully dissent. aptly commented: "This appeal involves sequence flavor old West law crossed Pecos. difference heroes trial." 1179 (CA6 1978). Code (1975) provides pertinent follows: "An individual commits "(4) willful, deliberate malicious killing perpetration arson, rape, burglary, larceny, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, unlawful throwing, placing, discharging destructive device bomb." subjected process redaction references replaced "blank" "another person." observed below, nevertheless "such leave jurors' minds 'person[s]' to." F.2d, 1180. conflict extends throughout Courts Third Circuits ruled applies Hodges Rose, 570 643 1978); DiGilio, 538 972, 981-983 (CA3 1976), sub nom. Lupo Staes, 429 1038, 97 733, 749 (1977), Ninth done impliedly, Ignacio Guam, 413 513, 515-516 943, 959, 124 addition Circuit, claims defendants. Cases Seventh that, does, Mack Maggio, 1129, 1130 (CA5 1976); Spinks, 470 64, 65-66 (CA7), 1011, 456, 305 Two refusing concern themselves "with legal nicety 'without' rule, 'within' [and] thereof constitut[es] error." Metropolis Turner, 437 207, 208-209 (CA10 1971); accord, Walton, 1348, 1353-1354 (CA8), 1025, 647, 628 (1976). State-court disarray. Compare, Stewart State, 257 Ark. 753, 519 733 (1975), People Moll, N.Y.2d 1, 307 N.Y.S.2d 876, 256 North Eastern 185, New York, 398 911, 1707, 71 Rosochacki, Ill.2d 483, 244 136 Oliver, 160 Conn. 85, 273 Atlantic 867 Defendant Harrington's crime, "fell short confession." 252, 1727. His source. Harrington, presence Noting relatively statements, lack opportunity cross-examine non-testifying co-defendants] constituted [v. (1967)]." 253, 1728. occasions, doctrine claimed violations following detailed tended corroborate certain portions Schneble's assumed, deciding, view comparatively statement, "any occurred petitioner's [error] doubt." 428, 1058 (emphasis added). 208 (1973), codefendants. both crimes charged. Solicitor General conceded Proceeding General's concession, "was uncontroverted jury." 231, 1570. 101 (1954), contended erred overruling motion severance, petitioner, finding guilty. contention: "It within discretion severally record indicate abuse severance overruled. repeated admonitions appropriate times Hollifield's incriminatory establishing amounts unfounded speculation jurors disregarded arriving verdict. Our theory There call confusion injustice arising contains guilty." 95, 165 (footnote 552-553, 254, 154 (1947). STEVENS characterizes attempt exception" post, 82, suggests "proposed ] it." Post, 87. describes what "rule" "exception." "rule"—indeed, trials functions American system—is trusted created exception, already devastated anything "irrelevant" holding. recognized: here. 1627-1628. Clearly, tied arose: "where dissent, states "squarely overrule[s]" Roberts Russell, 392 293, 1921, 1100 (1968); Hopper Louisiana, 658, 2281, 1347 (1973); "In cases," according though defendants' interlocked." 83 3. disagree. fails note significant distinctions precedential disposed unargued summary dispositions, noted Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 670-671, 94 1347, 662 (1974). "[t]he parallel[ed] 1921. inculpating officer. Petitioner's cousin "indicated thought easy place commit robbery." Opposition, O.T.1967, 920, Misc., Page 4. inculpatory, stretch imagination "confession." writ relying authority petition [was] retroactively." affirmatively, vacated Appeals, remanded further passing claim. Roberts, dissent's reading, "found came posture Roberts. Petitioners' manslaughter convictions Louisiana still law, pending decided. two-sentence disposition, petitioners' certiorari, "for [392 U.S.] 1100." 2281. passed claim, hardly error" Hopper. believe, likewise misreads discussion 5, reveals. Judge Edwards noted, writing Appeals: point affect relation separate observed: "1) gambling Vegas gambler, hometown got cheated. "2) They originating Wood's "3) (and been) "4) pistol, original 'unknown' blacks all-white aborted entry murder. "Additionally, return charged responsibility given. Assuming removed consciousness adherence impossible ultimate would, 'beyond doubt,' same. "These distinguish [395 284,] [405 340], convince errors (as held) determined 1182-1183. points out, 78-79, restricts "interlocking" (and, "interlock" is), "broader" established 72. explain qualifies "confession," guilt," "statemen[t] [oneself]." 73, 74. variously test "when[ever] [once] (i. whenever "maintained beginning"), "admission unchallenged" invalidity. 72,73. 1100, addition, robbery—statements heavily upholding Respondent's Pages 4, 6. That omit cautionary alone problem agreed. summarily reconsideration retroactive. 294-295, 1922. full usual 251 La. 77, 104, 203 So.2d 222, 232-233 remand, untainted both, 253 439, 218 551 certiorari. 396 1012, 545, 504. 230-231, 1570, 1728, 284. interlocked. inconsistent half lower federal opinions reasoning. 129, nn. 8, 9, 1624, 1627. cited there, Floyd Wilkins, 367 990 1966); Greenwell 119 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 962 (1964); Barton 263 894 1959); Hill Deegan, 268 F.Supp. 580 (SDNY 1967); Barbaro, Ill. 264, 692 (1946); Fisher, 249 N.Y. 419, 164 Northeastern N59 336, 341 (1928) (Lehman, Constitution provides: prosecutions, shall enjoy confronted "I Amendment's out-of-court basic Clause, seems (see, Pointer Texas, 380 [85 1065, 923]; [State of] Alabama, 1074, 934]) damaging, yet difficult discount, give minimal logically deserves, whatever give. [391 U.S.], [at 1628 12]. accusation universally constitutionally accused, worth." 137-138, 1629 (STEWART, concurring). Foster, Confessions Station House Syndrome, DePaul L.Rev. 683 (1969); Sterling, Interrogation Psychology Confession, J.Pub.L. (1965). T. Reik, Compulsion Confess 267 (1959). George perpetrator 705, 70. Fed. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) ("A expose liability offered exculpate trustworthiness statement"); Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 297. Berger 393 314, 540, 508; Barber Page, 719, 1318, 255; 400, 85 923; Motes 178 458, 993, 1150; 804(b), supra 8. Westen, Compulsory Process: Unified Theory Cases, Harv.L.Rev. 567, 582-586, dissenting 278, Frankfurter commented recurring difficulties persons collaborating enterprise declarations dilemma usually resolved cautioning matter admonition misuse intrinsically ineffective nonadmissible declaration wiped brains jurors. becomes futile collocation protection tell. While enforcing solely admonishing Hand, series psychological feat solution demands juries. stated problem: 'In effect, probably furthers, impedes, search truth, excuses satisfies violates substance; recommendation mental gymnastic beyond, powers, anybody else's.' Nash 1006, 1007. Government windfall influenced which, put minds." 247-248, 303. Writing 559-560, 257, 154, Rutledge said: grave any, arose rulings jury. direction, transfer, consciously unconsciously, excluded Goldsmith Weiss across barrier exclusion "That real. arise conspiracy occur increases. Perhaps best safeguards provided admissibility, bearing individuals, instructions, ward off entirely. extremely impregnable possible." Referring passage preceding footnote, Jackson frequently observation: naive effects overcome cf. 559, [68 154], practicing lawyers know unmitigated fiction." Krulewitch 440, 453, 716, 723, 790 (concurring opinion). "Not judges expected really twelve succeeded performing Hand called 'a anybody's else.' 1007 (2 Cir. 1932). realistically women codefendant's] privacy room, nigh irresistible temptation fill blanks [caused names] keys evidence] [to] ask intelligent Jones' supported [that evidence], anyone yield, colleagues effectively persuaded dismiss answers mind." 215. Wigmore, 2272, 416 (3d ed. 1940); Morgan, Some Problems Proof Anglo-American System Litigation 105 (1956). assure juror happened miss connection enters room. 345, 1098,

Classification Label: 0