Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
416 U.S. 637 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's improper remarks during a closing argument do not violate a defendant's due process rights unless they are so prejudicial as to infect the entire trial with unfairness, a determination that must be made in the context of the whole proceeding, including any curative instructions from the trial court.
Facts:
- Respondent DeChristoforo and two companions, including Gagliardi, were riding in a car with Joseph Lanzi.
- Police stopped the car and discovered Lanzi's dead body inside.
- Two recently fired firearms were found at or near the scene.
- The prosecutor argued that DeChristoforo willingly assisted in the killing, while DeChristoforo maintained he was an innocent passenger.
- During their joint trial for first-degree murder, and after the close of evidence, co-defendant Gagliardi pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.
- The court informed the jury of Gagliardi's plea before respondent DeChristoforo's trial continued alone.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondent DeChristoforo was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury in Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court).
- DeChristoforo appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (state's highest court), which affirmed the conviction.
- DeChristoforo then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which denied relief.
- DeChristoforo, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a divided vote, reversed the district court's judgment, finding a due process violation and granting the habeas petition.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 prosecutor's improper and ambiguous closing argument remark, suggesting the defendant hoped for a conviction on a lesser charge, so infect the trial with unfairness as to constitute a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly when the trial court provided a specific curative instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the context of the entire trial, were not sufficiently prejudicial to violate the respondent's due process rights. Federal habeas review of state court proceedings is narrow and is not intended to police every trial error. The prosecutor's comment was ambiguous and was not a deliberate misrepresentation of evidence like that in Miller v. Pate, nor was it a suppression of evidence as in Brady v. Maryland. Different courts drew conflicting inferences from the remark, suggesting it was not clearly prejudicial. More importantly, the trial judge gave a specific and strong curative instruction, directing the jury to disregard the unsupported statement. A single, ambiguous remark followed by a direct judicial admonition does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation that renders a trial fundamentally unfair.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The prosecutor's remarks constituted a denial of due process. The prosecutor's role is to ensure justice, not merely to secure convictions by any means. The comment suggesting the defendant hoped for a lesser conviction was a 'subtle equivalent' of telling the jury that the defendant had attempted to plead guilty, which is inadmissible and highly prejudicial information. This insinuation of facts not in the record is a 'foul blow' that deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The trial judge's subsequent instruction in the general charge was insufficient to cure the serious prejudice created by the prosecutor's improper statement.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
Although the writ of certiorari should not have been granted as the case presents no new principle of law, adherence to the 'rule of four' requires a decision on the merits. On that basis, I join the Court's opinion. The Court should generally leave undisturbed a court of appeals' decision on whether habeas relief is warranted on the specific facts of a case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high threshold for overturning a state conviction on federal habeas review due to a prosecutor's improper remarks. It distinguishes between ordinary trial errors, which should be handled by state courts through their supervisory powers, and egregious misconduct that amounts to a denial of 'fundamental fairness' under the Due Process Clause. The ruling emphasizes that the impact of such remarks must be evaluated in the context of the entire trial, giving significant weight to the mitigating effect of curative instructions. This makes it more difficult for defendants to succeed on due process claims based on prosecutorial arguments unless the comments are truly inflammatory, persistent, and uncorrected.
Unlock the full brief for Donnelly v. DeChristoforo