Satterwhite v. Texas
486 U.S. 249 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The erroneous admission of psychiatric testimony obtained in violation of a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis. To overcome the error, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inadmissible testimony did not contribute to the jury's sentencing decision.
Facts:
- John T. Satterwhite was charged with capital murder for the killing of Mary Francis Davis during a robbery.
- After Satterwhite was charged but before counsel was appointed, a judge ordered a psychological exam to determine his competency, sanity, and future dangerousness.
- After Satterwhite was indicted and counsel was appointed, the prosecutor filed a second motion for a psychiatric evaluation covering the same issues.
- Satterwhite's defense counsel was not served with a copy of this second motion.
- Without notifying defense counsel, the court granted the motion, and psychiatrist Dr. James P. Grigson examined Satterwhite in jail.
- Following the examination, Dr. Grigson reported his opinion that Satterwhite had a "severe antisocial personality disorder and is extremely dangerous and will commit future acts of violence."
Procedural Posture:
- Satterwhite was tried and convicted of capital murder in a Texas state trial court.
- During the separate sentencing proceeding, the trial court admitted the testimony of Dr. Grigson over defense counsel's Sixth Amendment objection.
- The jury returned affirmative findings on the special verdict questions, and the trial court sentenced Satterwhite to death.
- Satterwhite (as appellant) appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the admission of Dr. Grigson's testimony was a constitutional error but that the error was harmless, and it affirmed the death sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the appellate court's harmless error determination.
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 harmless error rule apply when psychiatric testimony, obtained in violation of a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Estelle v. Smith, is erroneously admitted during the sentencing phase of a capital trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the harmless error rule applies to the admission of psychiatric testimony obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right set out in Estelle v. Smith. The court distinguished this error from structural Sixth Amendment violations, like the total deprivation of counsel or conflicts of interest, which pervade the entire proceeding and require automatic reversal. The erroneous admission of specific evidence is a trial error whose impact can be quantitatively assessed by a reviewing court. Applying the Chapman harmless error test, however, the Court found the error was not harmless in this case. Dr. Grigson's testimony was powerful, unequivocal, and heavily emphasized by the prosecution on the critical issue of future dangerousness. Therefore, the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the expert testimony did not influence the sentencing jury's decision to impose the death penalty.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
No, harmless-error analysis should not be applied to this Sixth Amendment violation. The unique, profoundly moral, and discretionary nature of a capital sentencing determination makes it a "dangerously speculative enterprise" for an appellate court to predict what a sentencer would have done without the tainted evidence. The qualitative difference of the death penalty requires a heightened need for reliability that is undermined by harmless error review. Under Holloway v. Arkansas, a deprivation of counsel during a "critical stage" of a capital proceeding, which Estelle v. Smith established this examination to be, requires automatic reversal. The prejudice is not just the admission of testimony but the denial of counsel's guidance on the significant decision of whether to submit to the examination at all.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No, harmless-error analysis is inappropriate for a Sixth Amendment violation under Estelle v. Smith. Joining Justice Marshall's reasoning, this opinion adds a specific concern about the inherent unreliability of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness, noting that such predictions are wrong "two times out of three." This unreliability exacerbates the prejudice of the constitutional error, particularly in a system like Texas's where the jury must directly answer the very question the psychiatrist purports to answer, making harmless error review especially inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant distinction in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence between structural errors that require automatic reversal and trial errors subject to harmless error analysis. By classifying the Estelle v. Smith violation as a trial error concerning the admission of evidence, the Court limited the scope of the automatic reversal rule. However, its stringent application of the harmless error test in this capital context demonstrates that the standard for proving harmlessness is exceptionally high when powerful, prejudicial expert testimony on a key sentencing issue is involved. The case thus provides a framework where the rule allows for harmless error analysis, but the practical application makes it very difficult for the state to prevail in similar capital cases.
Unlock the full brief for Satterwhite v. Texas