trial-court arraignment

In September 1976, respondent David Washington committed a series of crimes over a ten-day period in the Miami area that included three brutal stabbing murders along with torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. After his two accomplices were arrested, Washington surrendered to police and gave a lengthy statement confessing to the third criminal episode. The State of Florida indicted him for kidnapping and murder and appointed an experienced criminal lawyer to represent him. Washington waived his right to a jury trial against counsel's advice and pleaded guilty to all charges, including the three capital murder counts. In the plea colloquy he stated that he had committed a string of burglaries but had no significant prior criminal record and that he had been under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family. Counsel spoke with Washington about his background, contacted his wife and mother by telephone, but did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination. At the sentencing hearing before the trial judge, counsel's strategy relied primarily on the plea colloquy to convey remorse and emotional stress and argued that these factors justified sparing Washington the death penalty. Counsel successfully moved to exclude Washington's rap sheet and decided not to request a presentence report because it would have included his criminal history. The trial judge found multiple aggravating circumstances for each murder and no mitigating circumstances, sentencing Washington to death on each of the three murder counts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Washington sought collateral relief in state court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on six grounds including failure to request a psychiatric report, investigate and present character witnesses, and seek a presentence investigation report. He submitted fourteen affidavits from friends, neighbors, and relatives willing to testify and two reports from a psychiatrist and psychologist. The state trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Washington then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel testified, the District Court denied relief, concluding that although counsel made errors in judgment by failing to investigate mitigating evidence further, no prejudice resulted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for application of a new framework it developed for analyzing ineffectiveness claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the proper standards for judging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a capital sentencing proceeding.

Edward Lawson was detained or arrested on approximately fifteen occasions by San Diego police officers between March 1975 and January 1977 while walking on the streets of the city. On each occasion, officers stopped Lawson and requested that he produce a driver's license or other identification. When he was unable to comply, the officers arrested him under California Penal Code section 647(e). Lawson was prosecuted twice under the statute and convicted once. The second charge was dismissed. Lawson filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against various officers and officials, including Deputy Chief Commander H. A. Porazzo of the California Highway Patrol. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that section 647(e) was unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction restraining its enforcement, and compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court held the statute overbroad, enjoined its enforcement, and denied damages on the ground that the officers had acted in good faith. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's determination that the statute was unconstitutional. It concluded that the statute violated the Fourth Amendment, contained a vague enforcement standard susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, and failed to give fair notice of the conduct prohibited. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the denial of a jury trial on the damages issue and remanded the case for trial. The officers appealed to the Supreme Court from the portion of the judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. California Penal Code section 647(e) (West 1970) provides that every person who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. The statute further requires that such a person refuse to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer if the surrounding circumstances indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification. California courts have construed the statute to require that a detained person provide credible and reliable identification. This identification must carry reasonable assurance that it is authentic and provide means for later contact with the person who has identified himself. The District Court made no specific findings concerning the circumstances of each stop, but the trial transcript contains descriptions given by both Lawson and the officers. One officer testified that he stopped Lawson on an otherwise vacant street late at night because the area was isolated and near a high-crime zone. Another testified that he detained Lawson while walking at a late hour in a business area where burglaries had occurred. Lawson stated that he had never been stopped by police for any reason apart from these detentions under the statute.

On August 5, 1999, Michael Crawford stabbed Kenneth Lee in the torso during a confrontation at Lee's apartment. Crawford and his wife Sylvia had gone there after Sylvia alleged that Lee had attempted to rape her several weeks earlier. Lee was taken to the hospital and later died from his wounds. Police arrested both Crawford and Sylvia that night. Detectives gave Miranda warnings and interrogated Sylvia twice at the station house. In her recorded statement Sylvia initially denied involvement but eventually admitted she had led Crawford to Lee's apartment and had seen the stabbing. Crawford also gave police a statement describing the events and his belief that Lee may have reached for something before the stabbing. At trial Crawford asserted self-defense, but Sylvia did not testify because of Washington's marital privilege. The State offered Sylvia's tape-recorded statement as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense and invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest. The trial court admitted the statement after finding it bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. The jury convicted Crawford of assault. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed after applying a nine-factor test and concluding the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. It determined that Sylvia's statement interlocked with Crawford's statement and therefore bore adequate guarantees of trustworthiness, noting that both accounts were ambiguous on whether Lee had possessed a weapon. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

On the evening of October 18, 1975, local police found the six members of the Henry Kellie family murdered in their home in Sutherland, Nebraska, a town of about 850 people. Police released the description of a suspect, Erwin Charles Simants, to the reporters who had hastened to the scene of the crime. Simants was arrested and arraigned in Lincoln County Court the following morning. Three days after the crime, the County Attorney and Simants' attorney joined in asking the County Court to enter a restrictive order relating to matters that may or may not be publicly reported. This request responded to the mass coverage by news media and the reasonable likelihood of prejudicial news that would make difficult the impaneling of an impartial jury. The County Court heard oral argument but took no evidence. On October 22 the County Court granted the motion and entered an order. The order prohibited everyone in attendance from releasing for public dissemination any testimony given or evidence adduced. It also required members of the press to observe the Nebraska Bar-Press Guidelines. Simants' preliminary hearing was held the same day, open to the public but subject to the order. The County Court bound the defendant over for trial to the State District Court on charges that included commission of the murders in the course of a sexual assault. Petitioners, several press and broadcast associations, publishers, and individual reporters, moved on October 23 for leave to intervene in the District Court. They asked that the restrictive order be vacated. The District Court conducted a hearing at which the County Judge testified and newspaper articles about the case were admitted in evidence. On October 27 the District Court granted the motion to intervene and entered its own restrictive order. The order applied only until the jury was impaneled. It specifically prohibited reporting of the existence or contents of a confession Simants had made to law enforcement officers, statements Simants had made to other persons, the contents of a note he had written the night of the crime, aspects of the medical testimony at the preliminary hearing concerning the sexual assault, and the identity of the victims of the alleged sexual assault. Four days later petitioners asked the District Court to stay its order. They applied to the Nebraska Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, a stay, and an expedited appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 25 and on December 1 issued a per curiam opinion that modified the District Court's order. The modified order prohibited reporting of only three matters: the existence and nature of any confessions or admissions made by the defendant to law enforcement officers, any confessions or admissions made to any third parties except members of the press, and other facts strongly implicative of the accused. The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Judge for reconsideration of whether pretrial hearings should be closed to the press and public. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. The parties informed the Court that Simants had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, with his appeal pending in the Nebraska Supreme Court. The restrictive order expired by its own terms when the jury was impaneled on January 7, 1976. There were no restraints on publication once the jury was selected.

Anthony Faretta was charged with grand theft in an information filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. At the arraignment, the Superior Court Judge assigned to preside over the case appointed the public defender to represent him. Two and a half months later, Faretta requested that the judge allow him to represent himself. The judge questioned him about his ability to conduct his own defense. Faretta replied that he had some experience with the law. He had once represented himself in a criminal prosecution. He had a high school education. The judge initially accepted Faretta's waiver of the assistance of counsel in a preliminary ruling. The judge indicated that he might reverse this ruling if it later appeared that Faretta was unable adequately to represent himself. Several weeks thereafter, the judge sua sponte held a hearing to inquire into Faretta's ability to conduct his own defense. The judge questioned him specifically about both the hearsay rule and the state law governing the challenge of potential jurors. After consideration of Faretta's answers, the judge observed his demeanor. The judge ruled that Faretta had not made an intelligent and knowing waiver of his right to the assistance of counsel. The judge also ruled that Faretta had no constitutional right to conduct his own defense. The judge reversed his earlier ruling and appointed the public defender to represent Faretta. Faretta's subsequent request for leave to act as cocounsel was rejected. His efforts to make motions on his own behalf were rejected. Throughout the subsequent trial, the judge required that Faretta's defense be conducted only through the appointed lawyer from the public defender's office. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Faretta guilty as charged. The judge sentenced him to prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's ruling that Faretta had no federal or state constitutional right to represent himself. A petition for rehearing was denied without opinion. The California Supreme Court denied review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.