Marco v. United States 8212 5684
| Decision Date | 18 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
| Citation | 415 U.S. 449,39 L.Ed.2d 501,94 S.Ct. 1185 |
| Parties | Joseph DeMARCO v. UNITED STATES. —5684 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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- 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.
Petitioner was convicted in the District Court of trafficking in illegal narcotics in violation of the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1964 ed.). The Court of Appeals summarily rejected petitioner's attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him, and dealt in detail only with the Giglio issue upon which this Court decides to vacate and remand for consideration by the District Court. As the Court notes, this was a 'factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shea v. United States, No. 17-1899
...... resolve[ ] 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 cla......
-
Maine v. Taylor
...appellate courts,' " Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982), quoting DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450, n., 94 S.Ct. 1185, 1186, n., 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974). As this Court frequently has emphasized, appellate courts are not to decide......
-
United States v. Bastone
...discretion to permit testimony as to promises made by the government in exchange for favorable testimony. DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974); United States v. Rodriguez, 439 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Greenberg, 423 F.2d 1106, 1......
-
U.S. v. Ramirez
...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 determin......
-
U.s. Supreme Court Criminal Decisions: 1973-1974 Term
...Miranda Violation: Michigan v. Tucker, supra, IC1b. c. Promise of Leniency to Government Witness DeMarco v. United States, _____U.S.___, 94 S.Ct. 1185, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974): A government promise to a witness prior to his testimony invalidates a resulting conviction. Giglio v. United States......
-
Putting Faith in Europe: Should the U.s. Supreme Court Learn from the European Court of Human Rights?
...(stating that "factfinding is the basic responsibility of [lower] courts, rather than appellate courts" (citing DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 (1974))).45. ECHR, art. 38.46. Id. art. 41; Mackenzie, Romano, Sands & Shany, supra note 35, at 353-54. 47. U.S. CONST., art. III, sec.......
-
The new rule 12(b) (6): Twombly, Iqbal, and the paradox of pleading.
...Cry. P. 52(a). (126.) Swint, 456 U.S. at 288. (127.) Id. at 291. (128.) Id. at 292. (129.) Id. at 293; see also DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 & n.* (1974) (per curiam) ("[F]actfinding is the basic responsibility of district courts, rather than appellate courts (130.) See s......