Williams v. Florida
| Decision Date | 22 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 927,927 |
| Citation | 90 S.Ct. 1893,26 L.Ed.2d 446,399 U.S. 78 |
| Parties | Johnny WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. State of FLORIDA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Richard Kanner, Miami, Fla., for petitioner.
Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Miami, Fla., for respondent.
Prior to his trial for robbery in the State of Florida, petitioner filed a 'Motion for a Protective Order,' seeking to be excused from the requirements of Rule 1.200 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. That rule requires a defendant, on written demand of the prosecuting attorney, to give notice in advance of trial if the defendant intends to claim an alibi, and to furnish the prosecuting attorney with information as to the place where he claims to have been and with the names and addresses of the alibi witnesses he intends to use.1 In his motion petitioner openly declared his intent to claim an alibi, but objected to the further disclosure requirements on the ground that the rule 'compels the Defendant in a criminal case to be a witness against himself' in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 2 The motion was denied. Petitioner also filed a pretrial motion to impanel a 12-man jury instead of the six- man jury provided by Florida law in all but capital cases.3 That motion too was denied. Petitioner was convicted as charged and was sentenced to life imprisonment.4 The District Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting petitioner's claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. We granted certiorari.5 396 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 439, 24 L.Ed.2d 420 (1969).
Florida's notice-of-alibi rule is in essence a requirement that a defendant submit to a limited form of pretrial discovery by the State whenever he intends to rely at trial on the defense of alibi. In exchange for the defendant's disclosure of the witnesses he proposes to use to establish that defense, the State in turn is required to notify the defendant of any witnesses it proposes to offer in rebuttal to that defense. Both sides are under a continuing duty promptly to disclose the names and addresses of additional witnesses bearing on the alibi as they become available. The threatened sanction for failure to comply is the exclusion at trial of the defendant's alibi evidence—except for his own testimony—or, in the case of the State, the exclusion of the State's evidence offered in rebuttal of the alibi.6
In this case, following the denial of his Motion for a Protective Order, petitioner complied with the alibi rule and gave the State the name and address of one Mary Scotty. Mrs. Scotty was summoned to the office of the State Attorney on the morning of the trial, where she gave pretrial testimony. At the trial itself, Mrs. Scotty, petitioner, and petitioner's wife all testified that the three of them had been in Mrs. Scotty's apartment during the time of the robbery. On two occasions during cross-examination of Mrs. Scotty, the prosecuting attorney confronted her with her earlier deposition in which she had given dates and times that in some respects did not correspond with the dates and times given at trial. Mrs. Scotty adhered to her trial story, insisting that she had been mistaken in her earlier testimony.7 The State also offered in rebuttal the testimony of one of the officers investigating the robbery who claimed that Mrs. Scotty had asked him for directions on the afternoon in question during the time when she claimed to have been in her apartment with petitioner and his wife.8
We need not linger over the suggestion that the discovery permitted the State against petitioner in this case deprived him of 'due process' or a 'fair trial.' Florida law provides for liberal discovery by the defendant against the State,9 and the notice-of-alibi rule is itself carefully hedged with reciprocal duties requiring state disclosure to the defendant. Given the ease with which an alibi can be fabricated, the State's interest in protecting itself against an eleventh-hour defense is both obvious and legitimate. Reflecting this interest, notice-of-alibi provisions, dating at least from 1927,10 are now in existence in a substantial number of States.11 The adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played.12 We find ample room in that system, at least as far as 'due process' is concerned, for the instant Florida rule, which is designed to enhance the search for truth in the criminal trial by insuring both the defendant and the State ample opportunity to investigate certain facts crucial to the determination of guilt or innocence.
Petitioner's major contention is that he was 'compelled * * * to be a witness against himself' contrary to the commands of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because the notice-of-alibi rule required him to give the State the name and address of Mrs. Scotty in advance of trial and thus to furnish the State with information useful in convicting him. No pretrial statement of petitioner was introduced at trial; but armed with Mrs. Scotty's name and address and the knowledge that she was to be petitioner's alibi witness, the State was able to take her deposition in advance of trial and to find rebuttal testimony. Also, requiring him to reveal the elements of his defense is claimed to have interfered with his right to wait until after the State had presented its case to decide how to defend against it. We conclude, however, as has apparently every other court that has considered the issue,13 that the privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses. 14
The defendant in a criminal trial is frequently forced to testify himself and to call other witnesses in an effort to reduce the risk of conviction. When he presents his witnesses, he must reveal their identity and submit them to cross-examination which in itself may prove incriminating or which may furnish the State with leads to incriminating rebuttal evidence. That the defendant faces such a dilemma demanding a choice between complete silence and presenting a defense has never been thought an invasion of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The pressures generated by the State's evidence may be severe but they do not vitiate the defendant's choice to present an alibi defense and witnesses to prove it, even though the attempted defense ends in catastrophe for the defendant. However 'testimonial' or 'incriminating' the alibi defense proves to be, it cannot be considered 'compelled' within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Very similar constraints operate on the defendant when the State requires pretrial notice of alibi and the naming of alibi witnesses. Nothing in such a rule requires the defendant to rely on an alibi or prevents him from abandoning the defense; these matters are left to his unfettered choice.15 That choice must be made, but the pressures that bear on his pretrial decision are of the same nature as those that would induce him to call alibi witnesses at the trial: the force of historical fact beyond both his and the State's control and the strength of the State's case built on these facts. Response to that kind of pressure by offering evidence or testimony is not compelled self-incrimination transgressing the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
In the case before us, the notice-of-alibi rule by itself in no way affected petitioner's crucial decision to call alibi witnesses or added to the legitimate pressures leading to that course of action. At most, the rule only compelled petitioner to accelerate the timing of his disclosure, forcing him to divulge at an earlier date information that the petitioner from the beginning planned to divulge at trial. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment privilege entitles a defendant as a matter of constitutional right to await the end of the State's case before announcing the nature of his defense, any more than it entitles him to await the jury's verdict on the State's case-in-chief before deciding whether or not to take the stand himself.
Petitioner concedes that absent the notice-of-alibi rule the Constitution would raise no bar to the court's granting the State a continuance at trial on the ground of surprise as soon as the alibi witness is called.16 Nor would there be self-incrimination problems if, during that continuance, the State was permitted to do precisely what it did here prior to trial: take the deposition of the witness and find rebuttal evidence. But if so utilizing a continuance is permissible under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, then surely the same result may be accomplished through pretrial discovery, as it was here, avoiding the necessity of a disrupted trial.17 We decline to hold that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guarantees the defendant the right to surprise the State with an alibi defense.
In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), we held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases that were they to be tried in a federal court—would come within the Sixth Amendment's guarantee. Petitioner's trial for robbery on July 3, 1968, clearly falls within the scope of that holding. See Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 N.E.2d 437; DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308 (1968). The question in this case then is whether the constitutional guarantee of a trial by 'jury' necessarily requires trial by exactly 12 persons, rather than some lesser number—in this case six. We hold that the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of 'trial by jury,' and that respondent's refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for by Florida law did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...state requests for a continuance for more time to prepare rebuttal to those defenses. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 85, 86, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 1897, 1898, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). To protect a defendant's right to refuse to incriminate himself, the state may use information obtained throu......
-
People v. Cooks
... ... White identified Moore in court ... Yolanda Williams, who was 17 years old at the time, had just parked her car in a bus zone on Fillmore Street north of Grove Street when she heard four gunshots ... (United States v. Nobles, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 233-234, 95 S.Ct. at 2167-2168; Williams v. Florida (1970) 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446.) The California Supreme Court, however, has interpreted the California constitutional privilege ... ...
-
Carrillo v. Biter
...Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial is violated when the "essential feature" of the jury is not preserved. See, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100 (1970). The relevant inquiry concerning whether a particular attribute of a jury is required concerns the function that a particular featur......
-
Hovey v. Superior Court
...to provide a representative cross-section of the community." (Id., at p. 230, 98 S.Ct. at p. 1034; see also Williams v. Florida, supra, 399 U.S. at p. 100, 90 S.Ct. at p. 1905.) A five-member jury was inadequate, In addition, smaller juries were "less likely . . . to overcome the biases of ......
-
MA Appellate Practice And Procedure Bulletin November 2022
...to have been a historical accident, unrelated to the great purposes which gave rise to the jury in the first place.'" Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1970). The Court looked to the drafting history of the Sixth Amendment, emphasizing that an earlier draft's "provisions that would h......
-
Witness
...to argue that the witness has not waived the privilege with respect to the new subject matter. CASES FEDERAL CASES Williams v. Florida , 399 U.S. 78, 84, 90 S. Ct. 1893 (1970). The fact that a litigant may be forced to choose “between complete silence and presenting a defense [has] never be......
-
Foreword: statutory interpretation and the federalization of criminal law.
...the jury, and it effectively drops out of the case."). (137) See Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988). (138) See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). (139) United States v. Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. 2310, 2321 (1995) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). (140) But see id. at 2320 (Rehnquist, C.J.,......
-
Why are non-unanimous (court-martial) guilty verdicts still alive after ramos?
...of a state or federal bar, before assigned duty as a military judge to oversee courts-martial proceedings. 289 281. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100 (1970); see also id. (holding that there is no constitutional requirement for twelve jurors in a criminal felony trial, affirming a Flor......
-
The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations
...Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) Griggs v. Duke P......
-
18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 12.1 Notice of an Alibi Defense
...about the constitutionality of a notice-of-alibi rule were to some extent resolved by Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). In that case the court sustained the constitutionality of the Florida notice-of-alibi statute, but left unresolved two important ques......