Court Opinion

ID: 9453475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:14:36.124441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:40.492924
License: Public Domain

BYRNE, District Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
On April 16, 1966, appellant crossed the border at the San Ysidro Port of Entry driving a 1950 Plymouth station wagon. A search of the vehicle revealed a number of packages of marijuana, amphetamine and seconal concealed in the tire well and side panels of the vehicle.
When interviewed by the officers, appellant was advised of his Constitutional rights as they had been delineated by the Supreme Court at that time. He was advised that he was under arrest; that he did not have to make any statement and that any statement he did make could be used against him. He was further advised that he was entitled to the presence of an attorney. He was not advised that if he could not afford an attorney, one would be cvppóinted to represent him. This last caveat was added to the warnings required of an interrogator by Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, decided by the Supreme Court on June 13, 1966, which was subsequent to the interrogation in this case.
The appellant voluntarily told the officers that a man named “John” had asked him to drive the Plymouth station wagon to Mexico for the purpose of picking up a load of marijuana; that the following morning he met John, received the station wagon and drove it to Mexico; that he parked it near a park in Tijuana, leaving it there for approximately four hours.
At the trial the Government was not permitted to use the admissions of the appellant during its ease in chief as *181Groshart had not been informed that if he" could not afford an attorney one would be appointed for him. The trial judge correctly took the position that this was a violation of the new rule laid down by Miranda.
After the Government rested, Groshart, testifying in his own behalf, opened the subject of how he happened to be driving the car, and told an entirely different story from the one he had told the officers.
The trial judge relying on Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503, although not permitting the officer to testify to that portion of Groshart’s statement in which he stated he was going to Mexico “to pick up a load of marijuana”, did allow the officer to testify to Groshart’s prior statement as to how he obtained the station wagon. The jury was instructed that the statements were admissible only upon the question of the credibility of the witness and not to establish the truth of the statements made.
The majority opinion relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda as authority for their position that it was error to permit impeachment of Groshart’s testimony by use of his prior statements. Not only is Miranda not dis-positive of the appeal in the present case, but the question of admission of statements for the purpose of impeachment, which the majority correctly states “is the crucial issue before us”, was not in Miranda.' If Miranda held what the majority says it does, it would be dictum as the question was not in the case. It was not argued before the court, nor mentioned in any of the four opinions filed in the case.
Neither in the main opinion, nor in any of the three dissenting opinions in Miranda is the word “impeach” found, with the single exception of a tangential reference in the majority opinion.
“The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner; it does not distinguish degrees of incrimination. Similarly, for precisely the same reason, no distinction may be drawn between inculpatory statements and statements alleged to be merely ‘exculpatory’. If a statement made were in fact truly exculpatory, it would, of course, never be used by the prosecution. In fact, statements merely intended to be exculpatory by the defendant are often used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate untruths in the statement given under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. These statements are incriminating in any meaningful sense of the word and may not be used without the full warnings and effective waiver required for any other statement. In Escobedo itself, the defendant fully intended his accusation of another as the slayer to be exculpatory as to himself.” (emphasis supplied)
By the use of this language the court is stating that the exclusionary rule is intended to reach exculpatory as well as inculpatory statements, and pointing out that statements of the defendant introduced by the prosecution under the guise of being exculpatory and not inculpatory, may have the effect of impeaching him by implication. This is entirely different from direct impeachment resorted to only after the defendant himself has affirmatively, and of his own accord, introduced the subject matter. This contrast is made clear by the Court in Walder v. United States, at page 65, 74 S.Ct. at 356:
“It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment.
“Take the present situation. Of Ms own accord, the defendant went be*182yond a mere denial of complicity in the crimes of which he was charged and made the sweeping claim that he had never dealt in or possessed any narcotics. Of course the Constitution guarantees a defendant the fullest opportunity to meet the accusation against him. He must be free to deny all the elements of the case against him without thereby giving leave to the Government to introduce by way of rebuttal evidence illegally secured by it, and therefore not available for its case in chief. Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility.” (emphasis supplied)
The majority says the Supreme Court’s decision in Walder has been “undermined” and “undercut” by the Miranda decision. This despite the fact that the question of impeachment was not in Miranda; that Walder was not mentioned in any of the four opinions filed in Miranda, nor is there any reference in any of the four opinions to the question which Judge Ely correctly states “is the crucial issue before us”. As I view it, Walder is still the law on the “crucial issue” before us; it was binding on the District Court as it is on us; it was properly employed by Judge Kunzel, and I would affirm.
Although, as I have stated, it is my view that Walder is dispositive of this case, I feel constrained to refer to the policy grounds developed in the majority opinion and to say a word in support of the principle that the historical function of a trial is a search for the truth.
It is argued that the Walder doctrine might exert undesirable influence on an accused to refrain from testifying in his own defense. The logic of this contention is dispelled by Judge Burger in Tate v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 13, 283 F.2d 377, 381-382 (1960). The accused is free to deny the charges against him. Only perjury is deterred. Whatever inhibition arises is not against testifying, but against testifying falsely.