Webb v. Texas
409 U.S. 95 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial judge's threatening and intimidating admonition against perjury, directed solely at the defense's only witness, which effectively coerces the witness into refusing to testify, violates the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- The petitioner, Webb, was on trial for burglary in a Texas state court.
- After the prosecution rested its case, Webb called his only witness, Leslie Max Mills.
- Mills had a prior criminal record and was currently serving a prison sentence.
- The trial judge, on his own initiative, gave Mills a lengthy and severe warning about the consequences of perjury.
- The judge threatened that if Mills lied, he would personally see that Mills was indicted for perjury, that the sentence would be added to his current one, and that it would impair his chances for parole.
- The judge had not given similar admonitions to any of the prosecution's witnesses.
- Following the judge's remarks, Mills refused to testify on Webb's behalf.
Procedural Posture:
- Webb was convicted of burglary in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas (trial court).
- Webb appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, which is the state's highest court for criminal cases.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's conviction.
- Webb filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 judge's lengthy and intimidating admonition against perjury, directed solely at the defense's only witness, which effectively causes the witness to refuse to testify, violate the defendant's due process right to present a defense under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A trial judge's threatening remarks, directed only at the single witness for the defense, that effectively drive that witness off the stand deprive the defendant of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the right to present one's own witnesses to establish a defense is a fundamental element of due process, as established in Washington v. Texas. Here, the judge went far beyond a simple warning, implying he expected the witness to lie and threatening severe, specific consequences that may have been beyond his power to impose. The great disparity in power between a judge and a witness, combined with the unnecessarily strong terms used, exerted such duress on the witness's mind as to preclude a free and voluntary choice about testifying. The fact that the witness refused to testify only after the judge's intimidating warning strongly suggests the comments were the cause.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. While the trial judge's admonition was improper, the facts presented are insufficient to demonstrate the level of prejudice required for a summary reversal of the conviction. The dissent argued that the judge's conduct might be more understandable in light of other facts not fully developed in the record, such as the overwhelming evidence of the petitioner's guilt and the possibility that the witness was known to be presenting a false alibi. Rather than summarily reversing the conviction, the Court should have denied certiorari and allowed the petitioner to seek relief through a post-conviction proceeding where a full evidentiary hearing could establish the context and actual prejudice caused by the judge's remarks.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to present a defense can be violated not just by statute but by the coercive conduct of a trial judge. It establishes a boundary for judicial intervention, cautioning judges that while they may warn witnesses about perjury, they cannot use their authority to intimidate or single out defense witnesses. The decision underscores that the effect of judicial comments is critical; if they effectively drive a witness from the stand, they can constitute a due process violation, regardless of the judge's intent. This precedent serves as a powerful check on judicial power within the courtroom and protects the defendant's ability to present their version of the facts.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Webb v. Texas (1972)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"