Olden v. Kentucky
488 U.S. 227 (1988)
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him is violated when a trial court prohibits cross-examination designed to show a witness's potential bias or motive to lie, and this right cannot be denied based on speculation about potential jury prejudice.
Facts:
- Starla Matthews, a white woman, went to a predominantly black establishment where she became intoxicated.
- James Olden and Charlie Ray Harris, both black men, left the establishment with Matthews.
- Matthews later alleged that Olden raped and sodomized her, with Harris assisting.
- Olden and Harris maintained that their sexual encounter with Matthews was consensual.
- At the time of the incident, Matthews was having an extramarital affair with Bill Russell, Olden's half brother.
- By the time of the trial, Matthews and Russell had left their respective spouses and were living together.
- Olden's defense theory was that Matthews fabricated the rape story after Russell saw her with Olden, fearing it would jeopardize her relationship with Russell.
Procedural Posture:
- James Olden and Charlie Ray Harris were indicted in Kentucky state court for kidnaping, rape, and forcible sodomy.
- At trial, the court granted the prosecutor's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the cohabitation of the complaining witness, Starla Matthews, and another man, Bill Russell.
- The jury acquitted Harris on all counts, and acquitted Olden of kidnaping and rape, but convicted Olden of forcible sodomy.
- Olden was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
- Olden, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the exclusion of the evidence was proper because its probative value was outweighed by the potential for prejudice.
- Olden then petitioned the United States Supreme Court 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 trial court's refusal to allow a defendant to cross-examine a complaining witness about her cohabitation with another man, in order to show her motive to fabricate a rape accusation, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A criminal defendant is denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when he is prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness. The Court reasoned that exposing a witness's motivation for testifying is a crucial function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination. Here, Olden's entire defense rested on the theory that Matthews had a motive to lie to protect her relationship with Russell, and preventing the defense from exploring this on cross-examination denied the jury facts from which they could draw inferences about her reliability. The trial court's justification—that revealing Matthews' interracial relationship with Russell might prejudice the jury against her—was based on speculation and could not outweigh the defendant's fundamental constitutional right to present a defense by showing witness bias.
Dissenting - Marshall
This opinion does not address the substantive legal issue. Justice Marshall dissented on procedural grounds, arguing that summary dispositions—deciding a case without full briefing or oral argument—deprive litigants of a fair hearing and increase the risk of the Court making an erroneous decision. He therefore dissented from the Court's choice to summarily reverse the lower court's judgment.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle established in Davis v. Alaska and Delaware v. Van Arsdall that the right to cross-examine for bias is a core element of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. It clarifies that a trial court's concern over potential jury prejudice against a witness is an insufficient basis for curtailing cross-examination that is central to the defendant's theory of the case. The ruling significantly limits a trial judge's discretion to exclude evidence of witness bias, particularly when that bias provides a motive to fabricate the very testimony at issue, thereby strengthening a defendant's ability to present a complete defense.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Olden v. Kentucky (1988)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"