Wardius v. Oregon
412 U.S. 470, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 56, 93 S. Ct. 2208 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the enforcement of state notice-of-alibi rules against criminal defendants unless the state also provides reciprocal discovery rights to the defense.
Facts:
- On May 22, 1970, Wardius was indicted under Oregon law for unlawful sale of narcotics, which allegedly occurred the previous day.
- At trial, after the State concluded its case, Wardius called Colleen McFadden to testify that she had been with him at a drive-in movie on the night of the alleged sale.
- The prosecutor objected to McFadden's testimony, citing Wardius's failure to file a notice of alibi as required by Oregon law.
- The trial judge granted the State's motion and struck McFadden's testimony.
- Wardius then took the stand himself and attempted to testify that he was at the drive-in with McFadden, but the trial judge again refused to permit this evidence.
- Oregon's notice-of-alibi statute, Ore. Rev. Stat. § 135.875, made no explicit provision for reciprocal discovery from the State.
Procedural Posture:
- Wardius was indicted under Ore. Rev. Stat. § 474.020 in an Oregon trial court for unlawful sale of narcotics.
- The trial court convicted Wardius and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment.
- Wardius appealed his conviction to the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing the Oregon statute was unconstitutional without reciprocal discovery rights and that the exclusion of evidence abridged his rights; the Court of Appeals rejected his contentions.
- The Oregon Supreme Court denied Wardius’s petition for review in an unreported order.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of reciprocal discovery.
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 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit states from enforcing notice-of-alibi rules against criminal defendants if those rules do not provide for reciprocal discovery from the prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids enforcement of alibi rules unless reciprocal discovery rights are given to criminal defendants. The Court held in Williams v. Florida that while states can experiment with broad discovery, the constitutionality of notice-of-alibi rules depends on whether the defendant enjoys reciprocal discovery. The Due Process Clause, though generally not dictating the amount of discovery, does speak to the balance of forces between the accused and the accuser. Unlike Florida's rule, Oregon's law provided no discovery rights to criminal defendants and did not require the State to disclose witnesses it planned to use to refute an alibi defense. It is fundamentally unfair for the State to demand that trials be a 'search for truth' when defense witnesses are concerned, while maintaining 'poker game' secrecy for its own witnesses, subjecting the defendant to surprise. The State's argument that its courts might have provided reciprocal discovery if Wardius had given notice and then requested it is unavailing; Wardius could not be faulted for taking the legislature at its word given the statute's plain language and the risk of disclosing alibi information without assurance of reciprocity. Without fair notice of reciprocal discovery, Wardius could not be compelled to reveal his alibi defense.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes, the conviction must be reversed, as the requirement for a defendant to provide notice of an alibi inherently violates the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, regardless of whether reciprocal discovery is provided. Justice Douglas joined Justice Black's dissent in Williams v. Florida, which concluded that such a rule is a 'radical and dangerous departure' from a defendant's right to remain silent and forces them to aid the State in their prosecution. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights, crafted with the vast power of government in mind, is designed to redress the inherent advantage of a government prosecution. The Court should not alter this balance. Reversing solely due to the uncertainty of reciprocal discovery is an embellishment of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as written.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it firmly establishes the constitutional requirement of reciprocal discovery in criminal proceedings when states implement notice-of-alibi rules. It builds upon Williams v. Florida by clarifying that the prior ruling's validity was premised on the presence of reciprocity, making it a necessary component for due process. Wardius underscores the principle of fundamental fairness, preventing the prosecution from enjoying a 'one-way street' of information gathering. This decision directly impacts how states design their criminal discovery statutes, pushing them towards a more balanced adversarial system and protecting defendants from trial by ambush when they disclose elements of their defense.
