Court Opinion

ID: 9463554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:09:49.80921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:03.014534
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result reached by Judge Garth, but because of the nature of the problem presented by this appeal consider it appropriate to add the following brief observations.
Although, as Judge Rosenn notes, Poteet v. Fauver1 arose out of a factual configuration markedly different from the one now before us, I am persuaded that its language and holding inveigh against the practice of augmenting a sentence on account of a trial judge’s belief that a defendant uttered false testimony.
Even if it were to be concluded that Poteet does not control the present case, I would have serious misgivings about the propriety of the sentencing procedure employed by the trial judge here. Such a practice, in my opinion, raises substantial constitutional questions in that it arguably trenches upon a defendant’s constitutional privilege to testify in his own behalf2 as well as his right to have criminal charges adjudicated pursuant to procedures required by due process. If a trial judge increases a sentence because he is of the belief that a defendant’s testimony is untruthful, such an action could be interpreted as penalizing the defendant for exercising his constitutional right to take the stand. In addition, this practice could have the impermissible effect of deterring future defendants from testifying in their own behalf. Also, the defendant is, in effect, being punished for perjury, a separate offense that can be the subject of a criminal prosecution.
Judge Rosenn’s dissent maintains that any constitutional challenges to the sentencing procedure under attack here have been foreclosed by the opinions of the Supreme Court in Williams v. New York3 and of this Court in United States v. Metz.4 I respectfully cannot agree. Neither Williams nor Metz dealt with the specific problem that now confronts us. The facts of those cases did not present the two constitutional infirmities that are arguably inherent in the sentence augmentation procedure at issue in this appeal. Nor do I find that the language of those opinions precludes a full consideration of these constitutional questions. Finally, it should be borne in mind that Williams antedated much of the evolving jurisprudence concerning the con*109stitutional rights of the accused. Given this fact, I believe that we should be cautious about construing Williams in an expansive manner so as to govern the quite different problems presented in this case.
In suggesting that the sentencing practice employed by the trial court is possibly constitutionally flawed, I acknowledge that a clear majority of courts of appeals have approved such sentence augmentation.5 Unlike Judge Rosenn, however, I do not believe that these citations can be considered to be conclusive of the constitutional issues. First, some of these cases are factually distinguishable from the one at bar. More important, however, is the fact that the bulk of the opinions that sanction the practice simply do not address the constitutional considerations. And those which do advert to the existence of possible constitutional difficulties are devoid of systematic analysis of the constitutional problems.6 In particular, I would note that Judge Frankel’s opinion in United States v. Hendrix,7 upon which Judge Rosenn placed much reliance, does not deal with constitutional concerns.
The constitutional issues that we leave unresolved in this matter are, in my judgment, important ones that merit serious scrutiny.' Hopefully, at the proper time, and in the proper case, they will receive definitive treatment.

. 517 F.2d 393 (3d Cir. 1975).

. Cf. United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1970); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); United States ex rel. Macon v. Yeager, 476 F.2d 613 (3d Cir. 1973).

. 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949).

. 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 1558, 36 L.Ed.2d 311 (1973).

. See United States v. Nunn, 525 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Hendrix, 505 F.2d 1233 (2d Cir. 1974); Hess v. United States, 496 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Moore, 484 F.2d 1284 (4th Cir. 1973); United States v. Cluchette, 465 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Wallace, 418 F.2d 876 (6th Cir. 1969); Humes v. United States, 186 F.2d 875 (10th Cir. 1959). But see United States v. Moore, 484 F.2d 1284, 1288 (4th Cir. 1973) (Craven, J., concurring); Scott v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 377, 419 F.2d 264 (1969).

. See, e. g., United States v. Wallace, 418 F.2d 876 (6th Cir. 1969).

. 505 F.2d 1233 (2d Cir. 1974).