Lexplug logoLexplug

Herbert William Chipman v. James Mercer, Chief Probation Officer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
628 F.2d 528, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14350 (1980)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, a defendant must be permitted to cross-examine a witness for potential bias, and a trial court's complete foreclosure of questioning into a relevant area of potential bias against a group to which the defendant belongs is a constitutional violation.


Facts:

  • Herbert Chipman previously lived at a residential care facility for mentally ill and retarded persons, which was operated by his aunt, Mrs. Ford.
  • The facility was located across the street from the home of a witness, Mrs. Ketchum.
  • Mrs. Ketchum had previously complained about the facility's residents, accused them of possessing stolen property, and circulated a petition to city officials to have the facility closed.
  • A valuable guitar was stolen in a burglary near Mrs. Ketchum's home.
  • Mrs. Ketchum, the only eyewitness, testified that she heard footsteps she recognized as Chipman's and saw him running from the victim's house carrying a guitar case.

Procedural Posture:

  • Herbert Chipman was convicted of burglary in a California state trial court.
  • The Third District Court of Appeal of the State of California, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the conviction.
  • The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied Chipman's petition for a hearing.
  • Chipman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, a federal trial court.
  • The U.S. District Court granted the petition, finding a Sixth Amendment violation.
  • The state appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

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 state trial court violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by refusing to permit any cross-examination of the sole eyewitness concerning her potential bias against a residential facility where the defendant lived and its residents?


Opinions:

Majority - Kennedy, Circuit Judge

Yes. A state trial court violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by refusing to permit cross-examination into a relevant area of potential bias. The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation guarantees a defendant the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses to show possible bias or self-interest. While trial courts have broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination, this discretion only applies after a constitutionally sufficient 'threshold level' of cross-examination has been permitted. The test is whether the jury possessed sufficient information to appraise the biases and motivations of the witness. Here, the defense offered to prove that the sole eyewitness, Mrs. Ketchum, harbored a general bias against the residents of a facility where the defendant, Chipman, lived, as evidenced by her past complaints and efforts to close it. Because Mrs. Ketchum's testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case, completely foreclosing inquiry into this potential source of bias deprived the jury of information essential to assessing her credibility, thus violating Chipman's confrontation rights.



Analysis:

This case clarifies that the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine for bias is not limited to personal animosity between the witness and the defendant but extends to bias against a group or class to which the defendant belongs. It establishes that a trial judge's discretion to exclude evidence under rules like Cal. Evid. Code § 352 (or FRE 403) is constitutionally constrained when it completely prevents the defense from exploring a relevant theory of a key witness's bias. The decision reinforces that when a witness's testimony is critical, the defendant must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to probe for prejudice, ensuring the jury can properly weigh the witness's credibility.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Herbert William Chipman v. James Mercer, Chief Probation Officer (1980)

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