Taylor v. Illinois
347 U.S. 396 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment is not an absolute bar to precluding a defense witness's testimony as a sanction for a willful discovery violation. A trial judge may impose this sanction to protect the integrity of the adversary process when the violation is willful and motivated by a desire to gain a tactical advantage.
Facts:
- On August 6, 1981, Ray Taylor was involved in a street fight in Chicago with a group that included Derrick Travis, against Jack Bridges.
- Members of Taylor's group used pipes and clubs to beat Bridges.
- Prosecution witnesses testified that Taylor shot Bridges in the back as he tried to flee.
- Taylor's defense witnesses, two sisters, testified that it was Bridges' own brother who had a gun and accidentally shot Bridges.
- A potential defense witness, Alfred Wormley, was prepared to testify that he saw Bridges and his brother with guns before the incident and had warned Taylor.
- Taylor's attorney met with Wormley a week before the trial began.
- On the second day of trial, the attorney moved to add Wormley as a witness, falsely representing to the court that he had just been informed about Wormley and had been unable to locate him previously.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Illinois prosecuted Ray Taylor for attempted murder in an Illinois state trial court.
- During pre-trial discovery, the prosecution requested a list of defense witnesses.
- On the second day of trial, defense counsel moved to add Alfred Wormley as a witness, but the trial judge denied the motion as a sanction for a willful discovery violation.
- The jury convicted Taylor of attempted murder.
- Taylor appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing the preclusion sanction was unconstitutional.
- The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the sanction was within the trial court's discretion.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Taylor'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 the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment absolutely bar a trial court from precluding a defense witness's testimony as a sanction for a willful discovery violation by defense counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, the Compulsory Process Clause does not absolutely bar the preclusion of a defense witness's testimony as a sanction for a willful discovery violation. While the Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to present a defense, this right is not unfettered and must yield to established procedural rules that ensure the fairness and integrity of the adversary process. The court's reasoning is that discovery rules serve the truth-seeking function of a trial by minimizing the risk of fabricated testimony and preventing unfair surprise. While lesser sanctions like a continuance are often appropriate, preclusion is a permissible sanction when a discovery violation is willful, blatant, and designed to gain a tactical advantage, as it was here. The Court found that the lawyer's conduct gave rise to a strong inference that the testimony was fabricated, and upholding the integrity of the judicial process outweighed the defendant's right to present this particular witness. The client must accept the consequences of their lawyer's deliberate trial conduct.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, absent evidence of the defendant's personal involvement in a discovery violation, the Compulsory Process Clause per se bars sanctions that exclude criminal defense evidence. The preclusion sanction is an arbitrary and disproportionate penalty that distorts the truth-seeking process by hiding potentially exculpatory evidence from the jury. Alternative sanctions are superior and sufficient to both correct the violation and deter future misconduct; a court could grant a continuance to allow the prosecution to prepare and could impose direct punitive sanctions, such as contempt or disciplinary proceedings, on the responsible attorney. Punishing an innocent client for the sins of their lawyer subverts the paramount value of acquitting the innocent. Furthermore, the majority's balancing test creates an untenable conflict of interest, as it places defense counsel in a position where their client's best interest (presenting the witness) is directly adverse to their own (avoiding personal sanctions).
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes, I join Justice Brennan's dissent, but with the understanding that its holding should be confined to general reciprocal-discovery rules. The dissent's per se bar on preclusion might not apply to violations of rules designed for specific kinds of evidence, such as a notice-of-alibi rule. In those specific contexts, the state's legitimate interests could be stronger and might justify a different outcome than the one that should apply in this case.
Analysis:
Taylor v. Illinois is a significant decision that defines the limits of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present evidence. It establishes that this fundamental right is not absolute and can be forfeited through the willful misconduct of defense counsel in violating procedural rules. The ruling empowers trial courts to use the severe sanction of witness preclusion to protect the integrity of the trial process from strategic manipulation and potential perjury. This places the risk of an attorney's flagrant discovery violations on the defendant, reinforcing the principle that a client is bound by their counsel's actions and prioritizing the systemic interest in orderly, fair trials over an individual defendant's ability to present all possible favorable evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Taylor v. Illinois