Nelson v. O'NEIL
402 U.S. 622, 29 L. Ed. 2d 222, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 39 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Confrontation Clause is not violated when a codefendant's out-of-court statement implicating another defendant is admitted, provided the codefendant takes the stand, denies making the statement, and offers testimony favorable to the defendant, thereby affording the defendant an opportunity for full and effective cross-examination.
Facts:
- Culver City police responded to a midnight call reporting two men in a white Cadillac suspiciously cruising near a liquor store.
- Police spotted the Cadillac, followed it into an alley, and observed a gun thrown from one of its windows.
- Police stopped the car and apprehended Joe O’Neil and Runnels.
- Further investigation revealed the car had been stolen earlier that night in Los Angeles by two men who forced its owner at gunpoint to drive them, robbed him of $8, and drove off.
- The victim subsequently identified Runnels and Joe O’Neil from a lineup as the men who had kidnaped and robbed him.
- Joe O’Neil and Runnels offered an alibi defense at their joint trial, claiming they were picked up by a friend driving the white Cadillac, were lent the car, found a gun in the glove compartment, and were disposing of it when arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Joe O’Neil and Runnels were arraigned on charges of kidnaping, robbery, and vehicle theft in a California state court.
- They pleaded not guilty and were tried jointly.
- The jury found both defendants guilty as charged.
- Joe O’Neil made unsuccessful efforts to set aside his conviction in the California state courts.
- Joe O’Neil applied for federal habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The District Court ruled that Joe O’Neil’s conviction had to be set aside under `Bruton` and `Roberts`.
- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, with the State (petitioner) as the appellant and Joe O'Neil as the appellee.
- The State (petitioner) then sought a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was granted.
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 Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit the admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant, when the codefendant takes the stand, denies making the statement, and testifies favorably to the defendant concerning the underlying facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No, the Confrontation Clause is not violated when a codefendant takes the stand, denies making an alleged out-of-court statement implicating the defendant, and proceeds to testify favorably to the defendant concerning the underlying facts. The Court distinguished this case from `Bruton v. United States`, which held that a cautionary instruction is insufficient when a codefendant's confession implicating the defendant is presented and the codefendant does not take the witness stand, thus preventing cross-examination. The constitutional right to confrontation guarantees confrontation 'at trial,' meaning the declarant must be available for 'full and effective cross-examination.' This principle was confirmed in `California v. Green`. In this case, Runnels, the codefendant, took the stand, was available for cross-examination by O'Neil's counsel, denied making the alleged incriminating statement, and testified at length, favorably to O'Neil, about the underlying events. The Court found it 'unrealistic in the extreme' to suggest O'Neil was denied the opportunity or benefit of full and effective cross-examination, as Runnels' testimony supported O'Neil's alibi, making it more favorable than if he had affirmed the statement and been subjected to cross-examination on that basis.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the Federal Constitution, as interpreted by `Bruton` and `Roberts`, forbids states from assuming juries can follow instructions to disregard highly damaging, incriminating admissions of one defendant against another, especially when the state's own law deems such statements inadmissible against the co-defendant. California law at the time of trial prohibited using Runnels' admissions as substantive evidence against O'Neil. The crucial question is whether California, having determined the statement inadmissible against O'Neil, could nonetheless present it to the jury with a limiting instruction. `Bruton` and `Roberts` established that the risk of a jury failing to follow such instructions for a co-defendant's confession is 'too great to tolerate in a criminal trial.' Therefore, California cannot subvert its own judgment of inadmissibility by presenting the evidence and merely instructing the jury to disregard it, as this leads to inconsistent application of evidence rules depending on whether defendants are tried jointly or separately.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Implicitly, yes, the current system of joint trials, when an out-of-court statement by a codefendant is inadmissible against another, creates a 'very real danger' that the statement will be used against the defendant, violating their rights. This case highlights the need for new rules regulating joint trials. The supposed efficiency benefits of joint trials are often negated by the 'protracted litigation' stemming from actual or near violations of confrontation and equal protection rights. Justice Marshall advocates for the adoption of the American Bar Association's standards for criminal justice regarding severance, which would require prosecutors, when faced with such an inadmissible statement, to choose between a joint trial where the statement is excluded, a joint trial where the statement is admitted only after references to the moving defendant are effectively deleted, or granting severance to the moving defendant.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes, I join in the Court's opinion and judgment that there was no `Bruton` violation on the merits. However, I would go further and hold that O'Neil, whose conviction became final before `Bruton v. United States` was decided, should not be able to avail himself of that new rule in subsequent federal habeas corpus proceedings. Retroactive application of new constitutional rules for final state convictions serves no sound public policy. It burdens federal courts, compels states to retry stale cases, or forgo enforcing criminal laws, without guaranteeing that state courts failed to apply then-prevailing constitutional standards. Such interference with the federal-state balance is not justified, especially since O'Neil is seeking an extension of `Bruton` and not simply its direct application to a fundamentally unfair trial. This reemphasizes the sentiment that 'No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation on issues already resolved.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the `Bruton` rule, limiting its application to situations where a codefendant's incriminating out-of-court statement is admitted and the codefendant is unavailable for cross-examination. By holding that a codefendant who takes the stand, denies the statement, and testifies favorably satisfies the Confrontation Clause, the Court emphasizes the opportunity for in-court confrontation over the content of prior statements. This ruling ensures that `Bruton` does not become a blanket prohibition against all joint trials where a codefendant has made an out-of-court statement, provided the defendant retains the ability to 'confront' the declarant at trial. The case reinforces the idea that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the opportunity for cross-examination, not necessarily a 'successful' cross-examination from the defendant's perspective.
