Chambers v. Mississippi

Supreme Court of United States
410 U.S. 284 (1973)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The combined effect of state evidentiary rules, such as the 'voucher' and hearsay rules, cannot be applied so mechanistically as to defeat the ends of justice by depriving a criminal defendant of their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to a fair opportunity to defend against the state's accusations.

Facts:

On June 14, 1969, a conflict arose in Woodville, Mississippi, during the arrest of a man named C. C. Jackson, attracting a hostile crowd.
During the commotion, Officer Aaron Liberty was shot and killed with a .22-caliber revolver.
Before dying, Officer Liberty fired his shotgun into an alley, wounding Leon Chambers.
Chambers was subsequently charged with murdering Officer Liberty.
Another man, Gable McDonald, gave a sworn written confession to Chambers' attorneys, admitting that he was the one who shot Officer Liberty.
One month later, at a preliminary hearing, McDonald repudiated his sworn confession, claiming he was persuaded to confess with promises of money and no jail time.
Prior to his written confession, McDonald had also orally confessed to the murder on three separate occasions to three different friends: Sam Hardin, Berkley Turner, and Albert Carter.

Procedural Posture:

Leon Chambers was charged with murder and pleaded not guilty in a Mississippi trial court.
At trial, the court denied Chambers' motion to examine Gable McDonald as an adverse witness under the state's 'voucher' rule.
The trial court sustained the state's hearsay objections, excluding the testimony of three witnesses who would have testified that McDonald confessed to them.
A jury convicted Chambers, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Chambers filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the evidentiary rulings denied him a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment, which the trial court denied.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
The United States Supreme Court granted Chambers' petition for a writ of certiorari.

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 the combined application of Mississippi's common-law 'voucher' rule, preventing a defendant from impeaching his own witness, and its hearsay rule, barring testimony of a third party's confessions against penal interest, violate a criminal defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Powell

Yes. The combined application of Mississippi's evidentiary rules unconstitutionally deprived Chambers of a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses on one's own behalf is essential to due process. The state's 'voucher' rule, which prevents a party from impeaching its own witness, improperly blocked Chambers from cross-examining Gable McDonald about his repudiated confession and alibi, even though McDonald's testimony was clearly adverse to the defense. Furthermore, the mechanistic application of the state's hearsay rule to exclude the testimony of three other witnesses who heard McDonald confess was a denial of due process because the excluded confessions were critical to the defense and bore persuasive assurances of trustworthiness. The confessions were spontaneous, corroborated by other evidence, unquestionably against McDonald's penal interest, and McDonald himself was available in court for the State to cross-examine.

Concurring - Mr. Justice White

Yes. This opinion joins the majority's holding on the merits but writes separately to address the jurisdictional issue of whether the constitutional claim was properly raised in the state courts. Although Mississippi has a contemporaneous objection rule, its courts have recognized exceptions for errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights. Given that the state did not contest the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and Chambers presented his due process claims to the Mississippi Supreme Court, it is appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction and decide the merits of the case.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist

No answer. The writ of certiorari should be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Petitioner Chambers failed to properly and timely raise his federal constitutional claims in the Mississippi state courts as required by federal statute. By raising only standard evidentiary objections during the trial and waiting until a post-verdict motion for a new trial to vaguely mention 'fundamental fairness' under the Fourteenth Amendment, Chambers denied the trial court an opportunity to rule on the constitutional issue. This procedural default, based on Mississippi's legitimate contemporaneous objection rule, means the constitutional question was not properly presented, and the Supreme Court should therefore not reach the merits.

Analysis:

This landmark decision established that a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause can override state evidentiary rules when those rules are applied in a way that prevents the defendant from presenting a crucial defense. The case significantly challenged the traditional, rigid application of the hearsay rule, particularly the common-law refusal to admit declarations against penal interest. By focusing on the reliability of the excluded evidence, Chambers paved the way for a more flexible, fact-sensitive approach to evidence, influencing the subsequent adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence which do recognize an exception for statements against penal interest.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Chambers v. Mississippi (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature