James v. Illinois
493 U.S. 307, 110 S.Ct. 648, 107 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The impeachment exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not allow the prosecution to use illegally obtained evidence to impeach the testimony of defense witnesses other than the defendant. Such an extension would undermine the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule without a proportional gain in truth-seeking.
Facts:
- On August 30, 1982, a trio of boys confronted a larger group, and one of the trio fired a gun, killing one boy and injuring another.
- Eyewitnesses described the shooter as having long, reddish-brown hair worn in a slicked-back 'butter' style.
- The next evening, police took 15-year-old Darryl James into custody as a suspect. At the time, his hair was black and curly.
- During subsequent questioning, James stated that on the previous day his hair had been reddish-brown and combed straight back, and that he had gone to a beauty parlor to have it dyed and curled to change his appearance.
- James did not testify at his trial.
- James called a family friend, Jewel Henderson, as a witness.
- Henderson testified that on the day of the shooting, she had been with James and his hair was black.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Illinois indicted Darryl James for murder and attempted murder in an Illinois trial court.
- Prior to trial, James moved to suppress statements he made about his hair, arguing they were the fruit of a warrantless arrest lacking probable cause.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress, making the statements inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
- At trial, the prosecution was permitted, over James's objection, to introduce the suppressed statements to impeach the testimony of defense witness Jewel Henderson.
- James was convicted on both counts.
- James (appellant) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which reversed his convictions and ordered a new trial.
- The State of Illinois (appellant) then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and reinstated James's convictions, extending the impeachment exception to all defense witnesses.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.
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 impeachment exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, which permits the prosecution to use illegally obtained evidence to impeach a defendant's own testimony, extend to permit the impeachment of the testimony of all defense witnesses?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. The impeachment exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not permit the prosecution to use illegally obtained evidence to impeach the testimony of defense witnesses other than the defendant. Expanding the exception would significantly undermine the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect on police misconduct while creating a chilling effect on a defendant's ability to present a defense. The potential gains to the truth-seeking process are outweighed by the systemic costs, as defendants might fear calling truthful witnesses who could inadvertently make a statement in tension with the suppressed evidence, thereby opening the door to its admission. While the existing exception discourages a defendant from committing perjury, extending it is not necessary to deter 'perjury by proxy,' as witnesses already face the threat of a separate perjury prosecution, which is a more significant deterrent for them than for a defendant already facing a serious charge.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule should be extended to allow the rebuttal of a defense witness's testimony with illegally obtained evidence. The majority's decision grants the defense broad immunity to introduce false testimony, which perverts the truth-seeking function of a criminal trial by positively misleading the jury. The interest in preventing the jury from being deceived by false testimony is just as strong when the testimony comes from a witness as it is when it comes from the defendant. The fear that this would chill a defendant's defense is speculative and could be mitigated by limiting the exception to situations where a witness's testimony is in 'direct conflict' with the suppressed evidence. The marginal deterrent effect on police is minimal, as the primary deterrent—the inability to use such evidence in the case-in-chief—remains.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. The Court is correct to not extend the impeachment exception. The dissent frames the issue incorrectly; the proper question is not simply about the truth-seeking function, but whether admitting the illegally obtained evidence advances that function enough to overcome the loss to the deterrent value of the exclusionary rule. The dissent overestimates the likelihood of witness perjury, as witnesses face the threat of a separate perjury prosecution, and it unfairly assumes the reliability of the police officer's testimony over the defense witness's testimony. An officer's recollection can be faulty or biased. Given the strong evidence from five eyewitnesses, it was unnecessary to rely on the illegally obtained evidence to discredit the witness in the first place.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the boundary of the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule, confining it strictly to the defendant's own testimony. The Court prioritized the rule's primary purpose—deterring police misconduct—over the incremental benefit to the truth-seeking function in this context. By refusing to extend the exception, the ruling protects a defendant's ability to mount a defense by calling witnesses without the fear that their testimony could inadvertently trigger the admission of otherwise unconstitutional evidence. This case serves as a key precedent limiting the government's ability to leverage illegally gathered evidence, reinforcing that a defendant cannot use the rule as a personal shield for perjury, but the prosecution cannot use it as a sword against the entire defense case.
Unlock the full brief for James v. Illinois