Douglas v. State of Alabama

Decision Date05 April 1965
Docket NumberNo. 313,313
Citation85 S.Ct. 1074,380 U.S. 415,13 L.Ed.2d 934
PartiesJesse Elliott DOUGLAS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Charles Cleveland, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner.

Paul T. Gish, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner and one Loyd were tried separately in Alabama's Circuit Court on charges of assault with intent to murder. Loyd was tried first and was found guilty. The State then called Loyd as a witness at petitioner's trial. Because Loyd planned to appeal his conviction, his lawyer, who also represented petitioner, advised Loyd to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination and not to answer any questions. When Loyd was sworn, the lawyer objected, on self-incrimination grounds, 'to this witness appearing on the stand,' but the objection was overruled. Loyd gave his name and address but, invoking the privilege, refused to answer any questions concerning the alleged crime. The trial judge ruled that Loyd could not rely on the privilege because of his conviction, and ordered him to answer, but Loyd persisted in his refusal.1 The judge thereupon granted the State Solicitor's motion 'to declare (Loyd) a hostile witness and give me the privilege of cross-examination.' The Solicitor then produced a document said to be a confession signed by Loyd. Under the guise of cross-examination to refresh Loyd's recollection, the Solicitor purported to read from the document, pausing after every few sentences to ask Loyd, in the presence of the jury, 'Did you make that statement?' Each time, Loyd asserted the privilege and refused to answer, but the Solicitor continued this form of questioning until the entire docu- ment had been read.2 The Solicitor then called three law enforcement officers who identified the document as embodying a confession made and signed by Loyd. Although marked as an exhibit for identification, the document was not offered in evidence.

This procedure, petitioner argues, violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment as applied to the States. The statements from the document as read by the Solicitor recited in considerable detail the circumstances leading to and surrounding the alleged crime; of crucial importance, they named the petitioner as the person who fired the shotgun blast which wounded the victim.3 The jury found petitioner guilty. The Court of Appeals of Alabama affirmed, 42 Ala.App. 314, 163 So.2d 477. Although stating that Loyd's alleged confession was inadmissible in evidence against petitioner under state law because '(t)here must be confrontation face to face to allow viva voce cross-examination before the jury,' and noting that 'it might be claimed that the repeated and cumulative use of the confession might have been an indirect mode of getting the inadmissible confession in evidence,' the Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction on the ground that petitioner's counsel had 'stopped objecting' and that in that circumstance, 'the failure to object was waiver.' 42 Ala.App., at 329, 332, 163 So.2d, at 493, 495. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied review, 276 Ala. 703, 163 So.2d 496. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 815, 85 S.Ct. 77, 13 L.Ed.2d 28. We reverse.

I.

We decide today that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is applicable to the States. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065. Our cases construing the clause hold that a primary interest secured by it is the right of cross-examination; an adequate opportunity for cross-examination may satisfy the clause even in the absence of physical confrontation. As the Court said in Mattox v. United States,

'The primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits * * * being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness, in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.' 156 U.S. 237, 242—243, 15 S.Ct. 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409.

See also 5 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1365, 1397 (3d ed. 1940); State v. Hester, 137 S.Ct. 145, 189, 134 S.E. 885, 900 (1926).

In the circumstances of this case, petitioner's inability to cross-examine Loyd as to the alleged confession plainly denied him the right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause. Loyd's alleged statement that the petitioner fired the shotgun constituted the only direct evidence that he had done so; coupled with the description of the circumstances surrounding the shooting, this formed a crucial link in the proof both of petitioner's act and of the requisite intent to murder. Although the Solicitor's reading of Loyd's alleged statement, and Loyd's refusals to answer, were not technically testimony, the Solicitor's reading may well have been the equivalent in the jury's mind of testimony that Loyd in fact made the statement; and Loyd's reliance upon the privilege created a situation in which the jury might improperly infer both that the statement had been made and that it was true. Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551, 557—558, 76 S.Ct. 637, 640—641, 100 L.Ed. 692; United States v. Maloney, 262 F.2d 535, 537 (C.A.2d Cir. 1959). Since the Solicitor was not a witness, the inference from his reading that Loyd made the statement could not be tested by cross-examination. Similarly, Loyd could not be cross-examined on a statement imputed to but not admitted by him. Nor was the opportunity to cross-examine the law en- forcement officers adequate to redress this denial of the essential right secured by the Confrontation Clause. Indeed, their testimony enhanced the danger that the jury would treat the Solicitor's questioning of Loyd and Loyd's refusal to answer as proving the truth of Loyd's alleged confession. But since their evidence tended to show only that Loyd made the confession, cross-examination of them as to its genuineness could not substitute for cross-examination of Loyd to test the truth of the statement itself. Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458, 20 S.Ct. 993, 44 L.Ed. 1150; cf. Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 890.

Hence, effective confrontation of Loyd was possible only if Loyd affirmed the statement as his. However, Loyd did not do so, but relied on his privilege to refuse to answer. We need not decide whether Loyd properly invoked the privilege in light of his conviction. It is sufficient for the purposes of deciding petitioner's claim under the Confrontation Clause that no suggestion is made that Loyd's refusal to answer was procured by the petitioner, see Motes v. United States, supra, 178 U.S. at 471, 20 S.Ct. at 998; on this record it appears that Loyd was acting entirely in his own interests in doing so. This case cannot be characterized as one where the prejudice in the denial of the right of cross-examination constituted a mere minor lapse. The alleged statements clearly bore on a fundamental part of the State's case against petitioner. The circumstances are therefore such that 'inferences from a witness' refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus unfairly prejudiced the defendant.' Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179, 187, 83 S.Ct. 1151, 1155, 10 L.Ed.2d 278, See also Fletcher v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 332 F.2d 724 (1964).

II.

We cannot agree with the Alabama Court of Appeals that petitioner's counsel waived the right to confrontation through failure to make sufficient objection to the reading of Loyd's alleged confession. The court stated: 'There must be a ruling sought and acted on before the trial judge can be put in error. Here there was no ruling asked or invoked as to the questions embracing the alleged confession.' 42 Ala.App., at 332, 163 So.2d, at 495. Yet, as the colloquy set out in the margin shows, petitioner's counsel did object three times to the reading of the confession before the jury.4 After the second time, the Solic- itor assured him that he already had an objection in—plainly implying that further objection to the reading of the document was unnecessary. The grund for objection to later questions would have been the same, that the confession was being read to the jury. In light of this record it is difficult to understand the Court of Appeals' conclusion; nevertheless, accepting the finding as an authoritative interpretation of Alabama law, we follow our consistent holdings that the adequacy of state procedural bars to the assertion of federal questions is itself a federal question. See Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 289—291, 83 S.Ct. 1240, 1243 1245, 10 L.Ed.2d 349. In determining the sufficiency of objections we have applied the general principle that an objection which is ample and timely to bring the alleged federal error to the attention of the trial court and enable it to take appropriate corrective action is sufficient to serve legitimate state interests, and therefore sufficient to preserve the claim for review here. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24, 44 S.Ct. 13, 14, 68 L.Ed. 143; Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32, 33—34, 45 S.Ct. 12, 69 L.Ed. 157. No legitimate state interest would have been served...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1705 cases
  • People v. Ashford
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1968
    ...Defendant relies upon Pointer v. State of Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 and Douglas v. State of Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 for the proposition that it is a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to use a witness' prior te......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 26, 1965
    ...not had an opportunity to confront the special employee. Reliance on Pointer v. State of Texas (1965) 85 S.Ct. 1065; and Douglas v. State of Alabama (1965) 85 S.Ct. 1074 is unfounded. In the former case the right of confrontation provided by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitu......
  • State v. Aponte
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1999
    ...Ed. 2d 923 (1965) .... The primary interest secured by confrontation is the right to cross-examination; Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418, 85 S. Ct. 1074, 13 L. Ed. 2d 934 (1965); and an important function of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying. Gree......
  • Terry, In re, Cr. 13949
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1971
    ...the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Pointer v. Texas (1965) 350 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923; Douglas v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934.) As we shall see, the contention lacks Confrontation serves to promote the discovery of the truth in the trial......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 books & journal articles
  • Trial issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 5, 2022
    ...A primary interest secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is the right to cross-examine. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Shelby v. State, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Cross-examination is the principle means by which the ......
  • Finality, Comity, and Retroactivity in Criminal Procedure: Reimagining the Teague Doctrine After Edwards v. Vannoy.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 73 No. 6, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...Clause as applied to a Black defendant, who had not been appointed an attorney until after his indictment). (218.) Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 422 (1965); see also Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 378-85 (2002) (applying the "legitimate state interests" principle and finding that requireme......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 17, 2014
    ...A primary interest secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is the right to cross-examine. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Shelby v. State, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Cross-examination is the principle means by which the ......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2021 Contents
    • August 16, 2021
    ...A primary interest secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is the right to cross-examine. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Shelby v. State, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Cross-examination is the principle means by which the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 804 Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable As a Witness
    • United States
    • US Code 2023 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Evidence Article VIII. Hearsay
    • January 1, 2023
    ...theory of declarations against interest they would be admissible as related statements. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), and Bruton v. United States, 389 U.S. 818, 88 S.Ct. 126, 19 L.Ed.2d 70 (1968), both involved confessions by codefendants which impl......
  • 18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 26.1 Foreign Law Determination
    • United States
    • US Code Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
    • January 1, 2023
    ...Cir. 1954); United States v. Leathers, 135 F.2d 507 (2d Cir. 1943); and cf., Painter v. Texas, 85 S.Ct. 1065 (1965); Douglas v. Alabama, 85 S.Ct. 1074 NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1972 AMENDMENTSince the purpose is to free the judge, in determining foreign law, from restrictive evid......

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