Snyder v. Massachusetts
291 U.S. 97 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a criminal defendant's presence at a jury view of the crime scene, so long as their absence does not thwart a fair and just hearing or prejudice their opportunity to defend themselves.
Facts:
- On April 9, 1931, James M. Kiley was shot and killed during an attempted robbery at a gasoline station in Somerville, Massachusetts.
- Snyder, along with Garrick and Donnellon, participated in the crime.
- Garrick confessed to his role and agreed to testify for the prosecution against Snyder and Donnellon.
- During Snyder's murder trial, the court granted the prosecution's motion for the jury to view the crime scene.
- The judge, prosecutors, defense counsel, and a court stenographer accompanied the jury on the view.
- Despite a motion by his counsel, the trial judge denied Snyder permission to be present at the view.
- At the scene, counsel for both the prosecution and defense pointed out various physical features of the gas station to the jury.
- The judge informed the jury of an agreement between the parties that one of the three gasoline pumps they were observing was not present at the time of the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- Snyder and a co-defendant were prosecuted for murder in a Massachusetts state trial court.
- During the trial, Snyder's counsel made a motion for Snyder to be permitted to attend the jury's view of the crime scene.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- A jury found Snyder guilty, and he was sentenced to death.
- Snyder appealed his conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, arguing his exclusion from the view violated his constitutional rights.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Snyder's petition 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 state's refusal to permit a defendant in a criminal trial to be present at a jury view of the crime scene violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Cardozo
No, the refusal to permit the defendant to be present at the jury view did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The presence of a defendant is a condition of due process only to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence. The court reasoned that while states cannot offend fundamental principles of justice, they are free to regulate their own court procedures. The constitutional privilege for a defendant to be present exists whenever his presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. A view of a crime scene, unlike the presentation of witness testimony, is not a stage where the defendant's presence is essential for confrontation or cross-examination. Any benefit from his presence would be minimal or a 'shadow,' as his counsel was present to protect his interests and he could later challenge any perceived inaccuracies through testimony. The court found no reasonable possibility that injustice was done to Snyder, as the facts about the scene were largely undisputed and his presence would not have aided his defense. Justice, the court concluded, is due to the accuser as well as the accused, and the concept of fairness should not be strained to invalidate a conviction based on 'gossamer possibilities of prejudice.'
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Roberts
Yes, the denial of the petitioner's request to be present at the view deprived him of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent argued that in Massachusetts, a view is considered part of the evidence-taking process, and the trial judge explicitly instructed the jury as such. The privilege of an accused to be present throughout his trial is a fundamental principle of due process, encompassing every stage where evidence is presented to the jury, not just witness testimony. The right is essential for the defendant to 'see, hear and know all that is placed before the tribunal.' To argue that the defendant suffered no prejudice is to miss the point; procedural due process concerns the fairness of the trial's manner, not just the correctness of its result. Because the view was treated as evidence and was a formal proceeding involving the judge and counsel, excluding the defendant was a denial of a fundamental right, rendering the process unfair regardless of the outcome.
Analysis:
Snyder v. Massachusetts establishes a flexible, functional test for the defendant's right to be present at trial under the Due Process Clause, moving away from a rigid, formalistic requirement of presence at every stage. The decision affirms that the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose a uniform procedural code on the states, allowing them substantial discretion in trial administration. This standard requires a showing of actual or potential prejudice, where the defendant's absence must have a 'reasonably substantial' negative relation to their ability to defend themselves. The ruling has significant implications for stages of a trial that do not involve witness testimony, such as jury views, in-chambers conferences, or purely legal arguments, giving courts more latitude to proceed without the defendant present if fundamental fairness is not compromised.
Unlock the full brief for Snyder v. Massachusetts