Court Opinion

ID: 9461239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:09:20.344212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:57.572949
License: Public Domain

GEWIN, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
Reluctantly, I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. In my view, this special concurrence is impelled by the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970), and the decision of this court en banc in Hoover v. Beto, 467 F.2d 516 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1086, 93 S.Ct. 703, 34 L.Ed.2d 673. Were it not for those two decisions, I would join with my dissenting Brothers.
The plurality opinion in Evans concluded that no error was committed in the trial of Evans on a capital offense when the state was allowed to prove by a witness named Shaw that Williams, a co-conspirator with Evans, made the statement, “If it hadn’t been for that *861dirty son of a bitch Alex Evans, we wouldn’t be in this now.” The Court concluded that the Georgia hearsay statute and Georgia decisions authorized the admissibility of the statement. Some of the Justices seemed to assign as an additional reason for admissibility the fact that the statement by Williams “did not misrepresent Evans’ involvement in the crime.” Two Justices thought the admission of the statement was harmless error because it was “so incredible that the testimony must have hurt, rather than helped, the prosecution’s case.” It is rather significant that four Justices concluded that the Georgia rule satisfied the right of confrontation (opinion of Justice Stewart concurred in- by Chief Justice Burger, Justices White and Blackmun). Four other Justices disagreed with that conclusion (opinion of Justice Marshall, concurred in by Justices Black, Douglas and Brennan). The deciding vote was cast by Justice Harlan who refused to apply Sixth Amendment standards to the Georgia statute and Georgia decisions interpreting it, but considered the question as posing an issue of due process. It seems fair to say that there is no clear holding of the Court except as to the result reached.
It is interesting to note that at the time of trial, the witness Williams was in the custody of the state of Georgia and easily available to the state. The murder for which Evans was being tried had been committed for over a year. The purpose of the conspiracy had been accomplished. The facts were known, and therefore, the statement by Williams could not have aided in the concealment of the conspiracy. Indeed, Truett, a participant in the murder, who had been granted full and complete immunity and was the principal prosecution witness, testified fully as to Evans’ involvement. As the court stated in Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 217, 67 S.Ct. 224, 227, 91 L.Ed. 196, 200 (1946), “[CJonfession or admission by one co-conspirator after he has been apprehended is not in any sense a furtherance of the criminal enterprise. It is rather a frustration of it.” Nevertheless, the plurality opinion in Evans sustains the admissibility of the statement under the Georgia rule which allows such evidence because it is deemed to be in furtherance of the conspiracy or in concealment of it. Whether the statement be considered incredible as some of the Justices seemed to think or as a true representation of Evans’ involvement in the crime as others apparently thought, it is surely not complimentary of a defendant standing trial on any charge, especially a capital offense, to be characterized as “a dirty son of a bitch” and to be accused as the person who caused the trouble.
Similarly, this court in Hoover permitted the state to introduce into evidence the confession of Calvin Sellars, one of the principals involved, through the mouth of Officer C. V. Stone. Officer Stone was allowed to testify as to what Sellars had said to him, which seriously implicated Hoover even though Sellars was not shown to be unavailable to the state as a witness.
If the hearsay statement made by Williams was admissible against Evans and if the hearsay statement made by Sellars was admissible against Hoover, notwithstanding the confrontation provision of the Sixth Amendment, I am compelled to concur in the result reached by the majority which approves the admission of damaging hearsay statements by witnesses who never confronted Park.
Although I feel bound to concur in the result reached by the majority, I must pause to pay some obeisance to the confrontation clause. Except for the cases cited, I could not agree that an accused can be deprived of the right to confront and be confronted by the witnesses against him. The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment arose out of ominous circumstances in the history of the common law. In 1586, Mary, Queen of Scots, was convicted in a star chamber proceeding chiefly on documentary evidence which she claimed was forged, but she was unable to interrogate those who had written the documents. Sir Walter *862Raleigh1 was convicted upon hearsay evidence in 1603 and ultimately executed fifteen years after trial. He pled for the right of confrontation in these words:
“If I knew any of these things, I would absolutely confess the indictment and acknowledge myself worthy a thousand deaths. Why, then, my Lords, let my accuser be brought and let me ask him a question and I have done; for it may appear from his own relation that his accusation cannot be true, or he may be discovered by examination. If you condemn me upon bare inferences and will not bring my accuser to face, you try me by no law, but by a Spanish inquisition. If my accuser were dead or out of the realm, it were something; but my accuser lives and is in the house, and yet you will not bring him to my face.” 2
Raleigh’s plea was made a vital part of our law in the Sixth Amendment.
Moreover, since I am bound by the result reached in Evans and in Hoover, there is another reason why I am constrained to concur in the result of the majority, even if I would not do so absent the two decisions mentioned. There yet remains in our law a viable principle which requires respect for the decisions of the highest tribunals of a state once it is concluded that a Constitutional issue is not presented. It is a hazardous undertaking for federal courts to overturn the conclusion of state courts unless the Supremacy Clause requires such action.
In Avery v. Alabama, 304 U.S. 444, 60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377 (1939) the defendant was convicted of murder, sentenced to death and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Avery was tried in 1938 for a murder alleged to have been committed in 1932. He was arraigned on Monday; two practicing attorneys were appointed to defend him; pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity were entered and the case was set for trial on Wednesday. The case was not reached on Wednesday but the trial actually commenced on Thursday. Appointed counsel moved for a continuance on the ground they had not had sufficient time and opportunity to investigate the case and prepare a defense. One of the appointed attorneys supported the motion for continuance on the ground that he had been substantially engaged in court on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Under these facts the Supreme Court concluded:
“Under the circumstances of this case we cannot say that the trial judge, who concluded a fairly conducted trial by carefully safeguarding petitioner’s rights in a clear and fair charge, deprived petitioner of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of Alabama having found that petitioner was afforded that right, its judgment is Affirmed.”
308 U.S. at 453, 60 S.Ct. at 325, 84 L.Ed. at 383.
Again in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the Court evidenced a profound respect for the judgment of a state appellate court. In Brady it is important to remember that the Court only held that the suppression of the accomplice’s confession violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also concluded that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of that amendment was violated by restricting the new trial, which it ordered, to the question of punishment only. Justice Douglas aptly stated:
“We usually walk on treacherous ground when we explore state law, for state courts, state agencies, and state legislatures are its final expositors under our federal regime.” (footnote omitted)
373 U.S. at 90, 83 S.Ct. at 1198, 10 L.Ed.2d at 220.

. See F. Heller, The Sixth Amendment 104 (1901).

. R. Raby, Fifty Famous Trials 17 (1937).