Douglas v. Alabama
380 U.S. 415 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses is violated when a prosecutor reads an alleged accomplice's out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant, while the accomplice is on the witness stand but invokes the privilege against self-incrimination and refuses to be cross-examined.
Facts:
- Jesse Douglas and Olen Ray Loyd were involved in an incident where a shotgun was fired at a truck, wounding the victim.
- Following his arrest, Loyd provided a signed confession to law enforcement officers.
- In his confession, Loyd detailed the events of the crime and specifically identified Douglas as the person who fired the shotgun.
- Loyd's alleged statement constituted the only direct evidence that Douglas was the shooter.
Procedural Posture:
- Olen Ray Loyd was tried separately in Alabama's Circuit Court (trial court) and found guilty of assault with intent to murder.
- The State of Alabama then prosecuted Jesse Douglas in the same court for the same charge.
- During Douglas's trial, the State called Loyd as a witness, but Loyd invoked his privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions about the crime.
- The trial judge ordered Loyd to answer, but he persisted in his refusal.
- The prosecutor then read Loyd's entire alleged confession, which implicated Douglas, to the jury under the guise of cross-examining a hostile witness.
- Douglas's counsel objected repeatedly, but the trial judge overruled the objections.
- The jury found Douglas guilty.
- Douglas (appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals of Alabama, which affirmed the conviction, holding that the defense had waived its objection.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama (the state's highest court) denied review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Douglas's 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 a prosecutor's action of reading an alleged accomplice's confession that implicates the defendant to the jury violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, when the accomplice is on the stand but refuses to answer questions by asserting the privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, this procedure violates the defendant's right to confrontation. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment secures the fundamental right of cross-examination. Although the prosecutor's reading of Loyd's statement was not technically testimony, it was the equivalent in the jury's mind of testimony that Loyd made the incriminating statement. Because Loyd asserted his privilege and refused to affirm, deny, or explain the statement, Douglas was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him to test the truth of the statement. The ability to cross-examine the police officers who took the confession was not an adequate substitute, as they could only testify that Loyd made the statement, not whether the statement itself was true. Therefore, inferences from Loyd's refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-examination, which unfairly prejudiced the defendant.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes, the petitioner was denied a right of confrontation. However, this right is derived from the concept of 'ordered liberty' within the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, not from a direct application of the Sixth Amendment to the states.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes, the petitioner was deprived of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. While agreeing with the judgment to reverse the conviction, the reasoning should be based on the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process rather than a direct incorporation of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
Analysis:
This decision, along with its companion case Pointer v. Texas, was instrumental in incorporating the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It reinforces that the core of confrontation is the right to cross-examine one's accusers and that this right cannot be subverted through indirect means, such as reading an unsworn, out-of-court statement into the record. The ruling prevents the prosecution from using the confession of a non-testifying accomplice as substantive evidence, thereby strengthening protections for criminal defendants in state courts against hearsay and unconfronted testimony.
Unlock the full brief for Douglas v. Alabama