Dutton v. Evans
400 U.S. 74 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is not a codification of federal hearsay rules and does not prohibit the admission of an out-of-court statement by a co-conspirator, made during the concealment phase of the enterprise, so long as the statement is not crucial or devastating and bears sufficient indicia of reliability.
Facts:
- In April 1964, three police officers were murdered in Gwinnett County, Georgia.
- Authorities charged Alex Evans, Venson Williams, and Wade Truett with the murders.
- Truett was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony against the others.
- At Evans's separate trial, Truett testified that he, Evans, and Williams were accosted by the officers while switching license plates on a stolen car.
- Truett stated that Evans and Williams then disarmed, handcuffed, and shot the officers in the woods.
- Another prosecution witness, a man named Shaw, was a fellow prisoner with Williams at a federal penitentiary.
- Shaw testified that after Williams returned from his arraignment, Williams told him, "If it hadn’t been for that dirty son-of-a-bitch Alex Evans, we wouldn’t be in this now."
- Williams, the declarant of the statement Shaw recounted, did not testify at Evans's trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Evans was indicted for murder by a grand jury in Gwinnett County, Georgia.
- After a jury trial in a Georgia state court, Evans was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
- Evans appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court denied Evans's initial petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Evans filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court, claiming a denial of his constitutional right of confrontation.
- The District Court denied the writ.
- Evans, as the appellant, appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that Evans's Confrontation Clause rights had been violated and his conviction must be set aside.
- The warden, Dutton, as the appellant, appealed the Fifth Circuit's judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
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 admission of an alleged co-conspirator's out-of-court statement, made during the concealment phase of a criminal enterprise and admitted under a state's hearsay exception, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the co-conspirator does not testify at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No. The admission of the out-of-court statement under Georgia's co-conspirator hearsay exception did not violate Evans's Confrontation Clause rights. The Confrontation Clause and the rules of hearsay are not coextensive; a state's evidentiary rule is not unconstitutional merely because it differs from the federal rule, which limits the co-conspirator exception to statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Unlike in prior cases like Bruton or Douglas, the evidence at issue here was not 'crucial' or 'devastating,' as the prosecution presented 19 other witnesses, including an eyewitness accomplice. Furthermore, the statement possessed sufficient 'indicia of reliability' to be placed before the jury, as it was spontaneous, against Williams's penal interest, and made under circumstances that gave no reason to suspect misrepresentation. The witness who recounted the statement, Shaw, was subject to vigorous cross-examination, satisfying the core concern for the accuracy of the truth-determining process.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The admission of Williams's extrajudicial statement, which implicated Evans, clearly violated Evans's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. This case is controlled by the principles established in Douglas v. Alabama and Bruton v. United States, which prohibit the introduction of an accomplice's incriminating statement without the opportunity for cross-examination. The plurality's search for 'indicia of reliability' is a poor and unconstitutional substitute for the truth-testing function of cross-examination, which would have allowed the jury to assess the meaning, context, and truth of Williams's alleged statement. The evidence was not peripheral; it provided necessary corroboration for the state's primary accomplice witness, whose testimony alone was insufficient for conviction under Georgia law, making its admission prejudicial.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. While joining the plurality opinion, the conviction should also be upheld because any error in admitting the statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The witness Shaw's testimony about hearing Williams's remark through a closed hospital door with a glass and steel mesh opening was so 'incredible' that it likely damaged the prosecution's credibility rather than helping it. Furthermore, the record contained substantial other evidence corroborating Evans's involvement in the underlying car-stealing conspiracy, rendering Shaw's testimony practically and legally insignificant.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
No. The Georgia statute is constitutional, but the plurality's reasoning is flawed because the Confrontation Clause should not be used to constitutionalize rules of evidence. The Clause's purpose is to regulate trial procedure, guaranteeing a defendant's right to be present and cross-examine witnesses who testify. The admissibility of hearsay exceptions should instead be judged under the Due Process Clause's standard of fundamental fairness. Georgia's rule allowing statements made during the concealment phase of a conspiracy is not irrational or fundamentally unfair, as such statements often have some trustworthiness and are necessary evidence. Therefore, its application did not violate due process.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant retreat from a broad interpretation of the Confrontation Clause, establishing that it is not perfectly congruent with the rules of hearsay. The Court introduced a more flexible, case-by-case analysis focused on the reliability of the out-of-court statement, moving away from a rigid rule of exclusion. This 'indicia of reliability' framework allows for the admission of certain hearsay against a criminal defendant, even if the declarant is not available for cross-examination, provided the statement is not 'crucial' and appears trustworthy. This creates a lasting tension in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, balancing the right to cross-examination against the admission of probative but unconfronted evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Dutton v. Evans