Cool v. United States

Decision Date04 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-72,72-72
Citation93 S.Ct. 354,34 L.Ed.2d 335,409 U.S. 100
PartiesMarilyn COOL v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

In this case, the court below held in effect that in a criminal trial, the jury may be instructed to ignore defense testimony unless it believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony is true. That holding is fundamentally inconsistent with our prior decisions in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967), and must therefore be reversed.

After a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of possessing and concealing, with intent to defraud, counterfeit obligations of the United States. The evidence showed that on June 2, 1970, petitioner, her hubsand, and one Robert E. Voyles were traveling together by car between St. Louis, Missouri, and Brazil, Indiana. Upon reaching Brazil, Voyles left petitioner and her husband and passed two counterfeit bills at a local store. He was then arrested shortly after he entered the car in which petitioner and her husband were waiting.

After his arrest, Voyles was placed in the police car and taken to the station house. Petitioner and her hus- band were told to follow in their own car. A Mr. Baumunk testified that he saw petitioner throw a paper sack out of the car window as petitioner was following the police car. The bag was subsequently found to contain counterfeit bills. Police also found three counterfeit bills crumpled up under the right seat of petitioner's car.

Although petitioner testified in her own defense, she relied primarily on the testimony of Voyles. Voyles freely admitted his own guilt,1 but steadfastly insisted that neither petitioner nor her husband had anything to do with the crime. He testified that petitioner had merely agreed to give him a ride and knew nothing about the counterfeit bills that he carried with him. When the car stopped in Brazil, Voyles allegedly removed some of the counterfeit bills from his satchel which he kept in petitioner's trunk, and concealed the rest of the bills in a sack which he placed under the front bumper by the headlight. The defense argued that it was this sack that Baumunk saw fall to the ground as petitioner drove to the police station. Voyles also stated that after he had rejoined petitioner, he saw police approaching the car and threw the remaining bills on his person onto the car floor, again without the knowledge of petitioner. Petitioner thus asserts that she was not in knowing possession of the bills on the car floor.

With the case in this posture, the Government's position clearly depended upon its ability to discredit Voyles, since his testimony was completely exculpatory. Over strenuous defense objection,2 the trial judge gave the jury a lengthy 'accomplice instruction' to be used in evaluating Voyles' testimony. After first defining the word 'accomplice' and warning that an accomplice's testimony is 'open to suspicion,' the judge made the following statement: 'However, I charge you that the testimony of an accomplice is competent evidence and it is for you to pass upon the credibility thereof. If the testimony carries conviction and you are convinced it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should give it the same effect as you would to a witness not in any respect implicated in the alleged crime and you are not only justified, but it is your duty, not to throw this testimony out because it comes from a tainted source.' (Emphasis added.)

The clear implication of this instruction was that the jury should disregard Voyles' testimony unless it was 'convinced it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.'3 Such an instruction places an improper burden on the defense and allows the jury to convict despite its failure to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.4

Accomplice instructions have long been in use and have been repeatedly approved. See, e.g., Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 523—524, 30 S.Ct. 588, 591—592, 54 L.Ed. 861 (1910). In most instances, they represent no more than a commonsense recognition that an accomplice may have a special interest in testifying, thus casting doubt upon his veracity. See, e.g., Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 204, 29 S.Ct. 260, 268, 53 L.Ed. 465 (1909). But in most of the recorded cases, the instruction has been used when the accomplice turned State's evidence and testified against the defendant. See generally McMillen v. United States, 386 F.2d 29 (CA1 1967), and cases cited therein. No constitutional problem is posed when the judge instructs a jury to receive the prosecution's accomplice testimony 'with care and caution.' See, e.g., United States v. George, 319 F.2d 77, 80 (CA6 1963). Cf. United States v. Nolte, 440 F.2d 1124 (CA5 1971).

But there is an essential difference between instructing a jury on the care with which it should scrutinize certain evidence in determining how much weight to accord it and instructing a jury, as the judge did here, that as a predicate to the consideration of certain evidence, it must find it true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Washington v. Texas, supra, we held that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to present to the jury exculpatory testimony of an accomplice. The instruction given below impermissibly obstructs the exercise of that right by totally excluding relevant evidence unless the jury makes a preliminary determination that it is extremely reliable.

Moreover, the instruction also has the effect of substantially reducing the Government's burden of proof. We held in In re Winship, supra, that the Constitution requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible that Voyles' testimony would have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, but that it was not considered because the testimony itself was not believable beyond a reasonable doubt. By creating an artificial barrier to the consideration of relevant defense testimony putatively credible by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial judge reduced the level of proof necessary for the Government to carry its burden. Indeed, where, as here, the defendant's case rests almost entirely on accomplice testimony, the effect of the judge's instructions is to require the defendant to establish his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because such a requirement is plainly inconsistent with the constitutionally rooted presumption of innocence, the conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN concur, dissenting.

I believe that the Court's fine-spun parsing of the trial judge's charge to the jury turns the appellate review of this case into the sort of 'quest for error' which was said in Bihn v. United States, 328 U.S. 633, 638, 66 S.Ct. 1172, 1174, 90 L.Ed. 1485 (1946), to be forbidden by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,1 and by 28 U.S.C. § 2111.2

The testimony of the witness Voyles, called by petitioner as a witness in her behalf, presented the trial judge with something of a dilemma in determining how he should charge the jury. Much of Voyles' testimony tended to exculpate petitioner, but there were significant aspects of it that did not. He substantiated the fact that the petitioner and her husband3 had traveled with him from St. Louis to Brazil, Indiana. He corroborated prosecution evidence that both petitioner and her husband gave the same false last name of Gibbs when booked at the police station in Brazil. He also suggested a closeness to petitioner's husband which was scarcely helpful to their defense when he testified that 'I was a little sore at Mike (petitioner's husband), because I thought Mike should help me (get out on bond).'

The trial judge made clear in his colloquy with counsel, while dealing with their objections to the charge, that he was concerned about the ambivalence of Voyles' testimony and felt it necessary to give the charge relating to accomplices. Petitioner's counsel in objecting to that portion of the charge did so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
315 cases
  • State v. Moye
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • October 9, 1979
    ...69-70, 327 A.2d 576 (1973). This assignment of error, if correct, would amount to such a deprivation; see Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972); and will therefore be considered. The defendant admitted the shooting and killing of Thomas McDuffie, but insis......
  • Secrease v. Walker, 2: 09 - cv - 299 JAM TJB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • July 12, 2011
    ... SHANNON SECREASE, Petitioner, v. JAMES WALKER, Respondent. 2: 09 - cv - 299 JAM TJB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DATED: July 12, 2011 ORDER, ...Ortiz , 387 F.3d 812, 820 (9th Cir. 2004)] (quoting Cool v. United States , 409 U.S. 100, 104 (1972)). When a jury instruction is erroneous because it ......
  • People v. Aston, Cr. 11261
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 1984
    ...doubt." (Ulster County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 156, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2224, 60 L.Ed.2d 777, 791; Cool v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 100, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335; see also Hughes v. Mathews (7th Cir.1978) 576 F.2d 1250).) Due process mandates that the state prove beyond a re......
  • Zemina v. Solem, Civ. No. 76-4090.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • September 22, 1977
    ...dimensions. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). See also Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972). The Supreme Court has stated that the test is "whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Brecht v. Abrahamson: harmful error in habeas corpus law.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 84 No. 4, January 1994
    • December 22, 1994
    ...n.9 (1984). (98) Sullivan v. Louisiana, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 2081-83 (1993). (99) Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 291 (citing Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 104 (1972), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970)). (100) Id.; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320 n. 14 (1979); Lanigan v. Maloney......
  • Defense witness as "accomplice": should the trial judge give a "care and caution" instruction?
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 96 No. 1, September - September 2005
    • September 22, 2005
    ...States v. Bolin, 35 F.3d 306, 308 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Cool, 461 F.2d 521, 524-25 (7th Cir. 1972), rev'd on other grounds, 409 U.S. 100 (1972); United States v. Nolte, 440 F.2d 1124, 1126-27 (5th Cir. (5) See, e.g., United States v. McCue, 3 M.J. 509, 511 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT