Adamson v. California
332 U.S. 46 (1947)
Rule of Law:
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not incorporate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore, a state law permitting a court and prosecutor to comment on a defendant's failure to testify does not violate the Constitution.
Facts:
- Adamson was charged with first-degree murder.
- Evidence against Adamson included his fingerprints on a door at the crime scene and testimony that he had inquired about selling a diamond ring similar to one stolen from the victim.
- Adamson had a prior criminal record for burglary, larceny, and robbery.
- Under California law, if Adamson chose to testify, his prior convictions could be introduced by the prosecution on cross-examination to impeach his credibility.
- Adamson chose not to testify in his own defense at trial.
- As permitted by California's Constitution and Penal Code, the prosecutor commented on Adamson's failure to take the stand to deny or explain the evidence presented against him.
- The trial court also instructed the jury that it could consider the defendant's silence in its deliberations.
Procedural Posture:
- Adamson was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of California, a trial court.
- Following the jury's verdict, the court sentenced Adamson to death.
- Adamson appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court, arguing the comment rule violated his federal constitutional rights.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted review of the judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law allowing the prosecution and court to comment on a defendant's failure to testify in a criminal trial violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process or Privileges and Immunities Clauses?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
No, the state law does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reaffirms its holding in Twining v. New Jersey that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the Due Process Clause does not incorporate all the rights of the federal Bill of Rights against the states; it only protects those rights that are 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.' The privilege against self-incrimination is not considered one of these fundamental rights. California's procedure does not compel testimony through torture or other coercion; it merely requires an accused to choose between leaving adverse evidence unexplained and subjecting himself to impeachment, a choice which does not rise to the level of an unfair trial or a denial of due process.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, the state law does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Twining v. New Jersey should be affirmed on its own authority, as it represents the settled law that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause does not apply to the states. The Due Process Clause has an independent meaning and should not be used as a shorthand to incorporate the specific provisions of the first eight Amendments, a theory he calls 'selective incorporation.' To allow jurors to draw an inference from a defendant's silence is a sensible rule that reflects how reasonable people evaluate evidence in everyday life and does not violate the 'immutable principles of justice' protected by due process.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the state law violates the Fourteenth Amendment. A thorough review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrates that its primary purpose was to make the entire Bill of Rights applicable to the states, thereby overturning the rule of Barron v. Baltimore. The Court's 'natural law' approach from Twining, which allows judges to subjectively decide which rights are 'fundamental,' is an incorrect interpretation that degrades the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the full protection of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against compelled testimony must be afforded by California, making the state's comment rule unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Murphy
Yes, the state law violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, including the privilege against self-incrimination, should be carried over intact into the Fourteenth Amendment. The California law violates this guarantee by compelling a defendant to be a witness against himself in one of two ways: 1) if he remains silent, that silence is used to draw unfavorable inferences against him, or 2) if he takes the stand to avoid those inferences, he is being coerced into testifying. This clear constitutional command cannot be ignored, regardless of policy arguments about the rule's desirability.
Analysis:
Adamson v. California is a landmark case in the constitutional debate over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states. The majority opinion represents the high-water mark of the pre-Warren Court's reluctance to apply these federal protections to state criminal proceedings, reaffirming the 'selective incorporation' doctrine from Palko v. Connecticut. Justice Black's influential dissent, with its detailed historical argument for 'total incorporation,' laid the doctrinal groundwork for the eventual incorporation of nearly all provisions of the Bill of Rights. Although the holding in Adamson was later overruled by Malloy v. Hogan (1964) and Griffin v. California (1965), the case remains essential for understanding the evolution of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Adamson v. California (1947)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"