Brooks v. Tennessee
1972 U.S. LEXIS 48, 32 L. Ed. 2d 358, 406 U.S. 605 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute requiring a criminal defendant who wishes to testify to do so before any other defense witnesses are heard violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right to the guiding hand of counsel.
Facts:
- Brooks was on trial in Tennessee for armed robbery and unlawful possession of a pistol.
- A Tennessee statute required that if a criminal defendant wished to testify, they must do so before any other defense witnesses.
- At the close of the prosecution's case, Brooks' defense counsel moved to call other defense witnesses before Brooks himself would testify.
- The trial court denied this motion, citing the mandatory Tennessee statute.
- The prosecutor offered to waive the statute, but the trial judge refused the waiver.
- As a result of the court's ruling, the defense called two other witnesses, but Brooks did not take the stand.
Procedural Posture:
- Brooks was tried and convicted of armed robbery and unlawful possession of a pistol in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, a state trial court.
- During the trial, the court denied Brooks' motion to delay his testimony until after other defense witnesses had testified.
- Brooks' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Brooks, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Brooks then sought review from the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court, which denied his petition.
- Brooks petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 statute that requires a criminal defendant to testify before any other defense witnesses are heard, or else forfeit the right to testify, violate the defendant's constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. A state statute that forces a defendant to testify first or not at all is an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right to counsel. The Fifth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to remain silent 'in the unfettered exercise of his own will.' The decision to testify is fraught with risks, and a defendant cannot realistically assess whether their testimony is necessary or wise until they have evaluated the strength and effectiveness of their other witnesses. The Tennessee rule forces this critical choice prematurely, making the assertion of the right to silence 'costly,' which is constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, the rule infringes upon the due process right to the 'guiding hand of counsel' by preventing the defendant and their attorney from making a crucial tactical decision about the timing of the defendant's testimony, thereby restricting their ability to effectively plan and present a defense.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No. The Tennessee statute is not unconstitutional. The Court is confusing its own policy preferences with the requirements of the Constitution. The rule serves a legitimate state interest in preventing a defendant from 'tailoring' their testimony to what other defense witnesses have said. The defendant was not compelled to testify; he was simply required to make a tactical choice at a specific point in the trial. The Constitution does not forbid requiring a defendant to make difficult choices. The majority's rationale would lead to the absurd result that a defendant could wait until the jury is about to deliberate before deciding whether to testify.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The state statute is constitutional. Since the petitioner, Brooks, never actually took the stand, his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not infringed. The Court's alternative holding elevates defense counsel to the role of an 'impresario' with control over the order of proof, which has traditionally been within the discretion of the trial judge. The right to counsel does not give the defense the authority to overrule the trial court's procedural rules. The Tennessee statute is a reasonable accommodation between the state's interest in preventing perjury and the defendant's right to be present at trial.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the timing of a criminal defendant's testimony is a matter of constitutional significance, not merely a procedural rule subject to the trial court's discretion. It elevates the defendant's tactical decision-making, guided by counsel, above the state's interest in preventing potential perjury through the sequencing of witnesses. The ruling effectively invalidates statutes that dictate a 'testify first or not at all' rule, thereby strengthening the Fifth Amendment privilege by ensuring the decision to waive it is made with as much information as possible. Future litigation in this area would have to respect the principle that any procedural rule that places a significant burden on the defendant's choice to testify will face heavy constitutional scrutiny.
