Marco v. United States 8212 5684, No. 73

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; REHNQUIST
Citation415 U.S. 449,39 L.Ed.2d 501,94 S.Ct. 1185
PartiesJoseph DeMARCO v. UNITED STATES. —5684
Decision Date18 March 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73

415 U.S. 449
94 S.Ct. 1185
39 L.Ed.2d 501
Joseph DeMARCO

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 73—5684.
March 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

At petitioner's trial, a Government witness who had been indicted with petitioner, testified that the Government had made no promises to him with respect to the disposition of his case. Petitioner was convicted and he appealed. Meanwhile, the witness had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge contained in a superseding indictment; and at the witness' sentencing hearing, the United States Attorney made certain statements that petitioner interpreted as proving that promises had been made to the witness prior to his testimony and that the witness had testified falsely at petitioner's trial. Without presenting the matter to the District Court, petitioner pressed the ques-

Page 450

tion in the Court of Appeals. That court accepted the tendered issue, examined the transcript of the hearing at which the witness was sentenced, considered the Government's response in the Court of Appeals and, although the prosecutor's remarks were deemed ambiguous and the question thought to be a 'close' one, concluded that no promises had been made to the witness prior to the witness' testimony at petitioner's trial.

Unquestionably, had there been a promise to the witness prior to his testimony, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), would require reversal of petitioner's conviction. It is also clear that there was a plea bargain between the witness and the Government at some point, the question being whether it was made after or before petitioner's trial. This factual issue was dispositive of the case, and it would have been better practice not to resolve it in the Court of Appeals based only on the materials then before the court. The issue should have been remanded for initial disposition in the District Court after an evidentiary hearing.* We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court with instructions to remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Certiorari granted; judgment of the Court of Appeals vacated; case remanded with instructions.

Page 451

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice POWELL join, dissenting.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Ramirez, No. 79-1106
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 7, 1979
    ...not been clearly established, where there is a substantive claim that an undisclosed agreement had been reached, DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974), requires remanding the case to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing in order to......
  • Norelus v. Denny's Inc., No. 07-14077
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • December 28, 2010
    ...bounds of its duty under Rule 52(a) if it undertakes to duplicate the role of the lower court."); see also DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 n. 1, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 1186 n. 1, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974) (stating that "factfinding is the basic responsibility of district courts, r......
  • U.S. v. Haldeman, Nos. 75-1381
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • December 8, 1976
    ...96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Ring v. United States, 419 U.S. 18, 95 S.Ct. 164, 42 L.Ed.2d 29 (1974); DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d......
  • Shea v. United States, No. 17-1899
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • September 28, 2020
    ...] in the first instance [a] factual dispute which ha[s] not been considered by the District Court" (quoting DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450, n.*, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974) ). Moreover, because the rule Johnson recognized applies only when the residual clause fixe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
92 cases
  • U.S. v. Ramirez, No. 79-1106
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 7, 1979
    ...not been clearly established, where there is a substantive claim that an undisclosed agreement had been reached, DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974), requires remanding the case to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing in order to......
  • Norelus v. Denny's Inc., No. 07-14077
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • December 28, 2010
    ...bounds of its duty under Rule 52(a) if it undertakes to duplicate the role of the lower court."); see also DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 n. 1, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 1186 n. 1, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974) (stating that "factfinding is the basic responsibility of district courts, r......
  • U.S. v. Haldeman, Nos. 75-1381
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • December 8, 1976
    ...96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Ring v. United States, 419 U.S. 18, 95 S.Ct. 164, 42 L.Ed.2d 29 (1974); DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d......
  • Shea v. United States, No. 17-1899
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • September 28, 2020
    ...] in the first instance [a] factual dispute which ha[s] not been considered by the District Court" (quoting DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450, n.*, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974) ). Moreover, because the rule Johnson recognized applies only when the residual clause fixe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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