Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The constitutionally improper denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, is subject to a harmless-error analysis, not a rule of automatic reversal.
Facts:
- On January 1, 1982, Doris Epps was stabbed to death in an apartment belonging to Daniel Pregent following a New Year's Eve party.
- Robert Van Arsdall and Daniel Pregent were the only two individuals in the apartment with Epps at the time she was killed.
- Robert Fleetwood, a key prosecution witness, testified that he saw Van Arsdall in Pregent's apartment just before the estimated time of death.
- Another witness, Alice Meinier, testified that Van Arsdall later appeared at her door with blood on his shirt and hands, holding a bloody knife.
- Prior to the trial, prosecutors had agreed to dismiss a pending public drunkenness charge against Fleetwood in exchange for his agreement to speak with them about Epps' murder.
- Van Arsdall's defense counsel sought to cross-examine Fleetwood about this agreement to suggest he was biased in favor of the prosecution.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Van Arsdall was charged with first-degree murder in a Delaware trial court.
- At trial, the court prohibited defense counsel from cross-examining prosecution witness Robert Fleetwood about an agreement to have a public drunkenness charge dropped in exchange for speaking with the prosecutor.
- A jury convicted Van Arsdall of murder.
- Van Arsdall, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
- The Delaware Supreme Court, finding a Confrontation Clause violation, held that such an error was per se reversible and overturned the conviction without conducting a harmless-error analysis.
- The State of Delaware, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court 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:
Is a violation of the Confrontation Clause, caused by a trial court's improper denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, subject to a harmless-error analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
Yes, a Confrontation Clause violation arising from the improper denial of cross-examination for bias is subject to a harmless-error analysis. While the trial court’s complete prohibition on questioning a witness about a potential source of bias violated Robert Van Arsdall's Sixth Amendment rights, not all constitutional errors require automatic reversal. The harmless-error doctrine, established in Chapman v. California, recognizes that the purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence, and a conviction should not be set aside for an immaterial error that was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Previous Confrontation Clause cases, like Harrington v. California, have applied this analysis. The decision in Davis v. Alaska did not establish a per se rule of reversal; rather, it found the error in that specific case caused 'serious damage' to the defense. The proper inquiry is whether, assuming the damaging potential of the precluded cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court can confidently say the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the case should be remanded for consideration of prejudice, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. A violation of the Confrontation Clause should not be found in the first place if the limitation on cross-examination could not have possibly affected the outcome of the trial. The majority creates a confusing category of constitutional errors that are 'unreasonable' but 'harmless.' It is more sensible to hold that no constitutional violation occurred unless the error created some likelihood that the trial's outcome was affected. Thus, the harmlessness of the error should be part of the initial inquiry into whether a constitutional violation occurred at all, not a separate analysis applied after a violation has been found.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
No, a complete denial of cross-examination designed to explore the bias of a prosecution witness should result in the automatic reversal of a conviction. The right to cross-examination is so fundamental to the fairness and accuracy of a criminal trial that an appellate court is ill-equipped to determine that its denial had no effect. A reviewing court cannot know what exculpatory evidence might have been elicited or how a jury's perception of a witness's credibility would have changed. To find the error harmless, a court would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted even if it believed the witness was lying, which is an almost impossible standard. This type of error is so pernicious that a per se rule of reversal, as suggested by Davis v. Alaska, is the only appropriate remedy.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
This dissent does not reach the merits of the harmless-error question but argues that the Court should have dismissed the writ of certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. The Court improperly presumed jurisdiction by extending the rule from Michigan v. Long. When a state supreme court decision, like the one from Delaware, does not contain a 'plain statement' that it rests on state law grounds, the Court presumes it is based on federal law. This approach intrudes on state judicial prerogatives and risks friction between federal and state courts. State courts should be presumed to be exercising their supervisory power to fashion remedies under their own constitutions unless they explicitly state that federal law compels their decision. Therefore, the Court should have declined to review the Delaware Supreme Court's chosen remedy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Chapman harmless-error standard to Confrontation Clause violations involving the denial of cross-examination for witness bias. By rejecting a rule of automatic reversal, the Court classified this type of error as a 'trial error' rather than a 'structural error.' This clarification tempers the broad language of Davis v. Alaska, providing appellate courts with a specific framework to uphold convictions despite certain constitutional errors, so long as the prosecution can prove the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling emphasizes judicial efficiency and finality over a rule that would require retrials for potentially insignificant errors.
