author: Mr. Justice Fortas Mr. Justice Black, Mb. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart,

text:
    HARRIS, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE (WALKER, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST) v. NELSON, WARDEN.
    No. 199.
    Argued December 9, 1968.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      J. Stanley Pottinger, by appointment of the Court, 393 U. S. 814, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Deraid E. Oranberg, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Charles R. B. Kirk, Deputy Attorney General, joined in and adopted by the Attorneys General and other officials of their respective jurisdictions as follows: MacDonald Gallion of Alabama, Gary K. Nelson of Arizona, Joe Purcell of Arkansas, Duke W. Dunbar of Colorado, David P. Buckson of Delaware, Earl Faircloth of Florida, Arthur K. Bolton of Georgia, Bert T. Kobayashi of Hawaii, William G. Clark of Illinois, John J. Dillon of Indiana, Richard C. Turner of Iowa, John B. Breckin-ridge of Kentucky, Jack P. F. Gremillion of Louisiana, James S. Erwin of Maine, Francis B. Burch of Maryland, Elliot L. Richardson of Massachusetts, Douglas M. Head of Minnesota, Joe T. Patterson of Mississippi, Clarence A. H. Meyer of Nebraska, Harvey Dickerson of Nevada, Arthur J. Sills of New Jersey, Boston E. Witt of New Mexico, Louis J. Lefkowitz of New York, T. Wade Bruton of North Carolina, Helgi Johanneson of North Dakota, William B. Saxbe of Ohio, G. T. Blankenship of Oklahoma, William C. Sennett of Pennsylvania, Herbert F. DeSimone of Rhode Island, Daniel R. McLeod of South Carolina, George F. McCanless of Tennessee, James L. Oakes of Vermont, Robert Y. Button and Reno S. Harp III of Virginia, John J. O’Connell of Washington, Bronson C. LaFollette of Wisconsin, and Paul J. Abbate of Guam; and by the National District Attorneys’ Association.

      Jerome M. Feit argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, John S. Martin, Jr., and Paul C. Summitt.

      Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Michael Melts-ner, and Anthony G. Amsterdam filed a brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Amy Juviler and Joel H. Sachs, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of New York as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
   Mr. Justice Fortas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether state prisoners who have commenced habeas corpus proceedings in a federal district court may, in proper circumstances, utilize the instrument of interrogatories for discovery purposes.

I.

Petitioner is the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Respondent is the warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin. The proceeding was initiated by Alfred Walker who had been convicted in the California courts of the crime of possession of marihuana. After exhausting state remedies, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court, alleging that evidence seized in the search incident to his arrest was improperly admitted at his trial. The basis for this claim was his allegation that the arrest and incidental search were based solely on the statement of an informant who, according to Walker’s sworn statement, was not shown to have been reliable; who, in fact, was unreliable; and whose statements were accepted by the police without proper precautionary procedures.

The District Court issued an order to show cause and respondent made return. Thereafter, Walker filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing, which the District Court granted. Two months later, Walker served upon the respondent warden a series of interrogatories, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking discovery of certain facts directed to proof of the informant’s unreliability. Respondent filed objections to the interrogatories, alleging the absence of authority for their issuance. The District Judge, without stating his reasons, disallowed the objections and directed that the interrogatories be answered. Respondent applied to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. The Ninth Circuit vacated the order of the District Court. It held that the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not applicable to habeas corpus proceedings and that 28 U. S. C. § 2246, the statutory provision specifically relating to the use of interrogatories in habeas corpus proceedings, did not authorize their use for discovery. Wilson v. Harris, 378 F. 2d 141 (1967).

Because of the importance of the questions presented and the diversity of views among the district and appellate courts that have considered the problem, we granted certiorari. 392 U. S. 925. We agree with the Ninth Circuit that Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not applicable to habeas corpus proceedings and that 28 U. S. C. § 2246 does not authorize interrogatories except in limited circumstances not applicable to this case; but we conclude that, in appropriate circumstances, a district court, confronted by a petition for habeas corpus which establishes a prima facie case for relief, may use or authorize the use of suitable discovery procedures, including interrogatories, reasonably fashioned to elicit facts necessary to help the court to “dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 28 U. S. C. § 2243. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case in order that the District Court may reconsider the matter before it in light of our opinion and judgment.

II.

The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action. Its pre-eminent role is recognized by the admonition in the Constitution that: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended . . . U. S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. The scope and flexibility of the writ — its capacity to reach all manner of illegal detention — its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes — have always been emphasized and jealously guarded by courts and lawmakers. The very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.

As Blackstone phrased it, habeas corpus is “the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.” As this Court said in Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 401-402 (1963), the office of the writ is “to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints.” See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 65-67 (1968).

It is now established beyond the reach of reasonable dispute that the federal courts not only may grant evi-dentiary hearings to applicants, but must do so upon an appropriate showing. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 313 (1963); Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 464, n. 19 (1953). And this Court has emphasized, taking into account the office of the writ and the fact that the petitioner, being in custody, is usually handicapped in developing the evidence needed to support in necessary detail the facts alleged in his petition, that a habeas corpus proceeding must not be allowed to founder in a “procedural morass.” Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 269 (1948).

There is no higher duty of a court, under our constitutional system, than the careful processing and adjudication of petitions for writs of habeas corpus, for it is in such proceedings that a person in custody charges that error, neglect, or evil purpose has resulted in his unlawful confinement and that he is deprived of his freedom contrary to law. This Court has insistently said that the power of the federal courts to conduct inquiry in habeas corpus is equal to the responsibility which the writ involves: “The language of Congress, the history of the writ, the decisions of this Court, all make clear that the power of inquiry on federal habeas corpus is plenary.” Townsend v. Sain, supra, at 312.

In the present case, we are confronted with a procedural problem which tests the reality of these great principles. We are asked by Walker to establish the existence of rights for those in custody to discover facts which may aid their petitions for release. We are asked to do this by declaring that the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting such rights to litigants in civil causes are available to Walker; or if we refuse so to conclude, to affirm the existence of power in the District Court to authorize discovery by written interrogatories. We address ourselves to those issues.

III.

Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: “These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature . . . with the exceptions stated in Rule 81.” At the time of the decision below Rule 81 (a) (2) provided, in relevant part, that the Rules were not applicable in habeas corpus “except to the extent that the practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice in actions at law or suits in equity.”

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the second requirement — “conformity” with practice— made it necessary to show that “prior to September 16, 1938, discovery was actually being used in habeas proceedings, and that such use conformed to the then discovery practice in actions at law or suits in equity.” 378 F. 2d, at 144. No such showing was made and it is not here contended that it can be made. Walker contends, however, that the rule requires only a showing that habeas proceedings conformed generally to pre-existing practice in law and equity, and he contends that this general requirement is met.

We need not consider this contention that the Court of Appeals took an unnecessarily restricted view of the thrust of the “conformity” requirement, because for other reasons we conclude that the intended scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the history of habeas corpus procedure, make it clear that Rule 81 (a) (2) must be read to exclude the application of Rule 33 in habeas corpus proceedings.

It is, of course, true that habeas corpus proceedings are characterized as “civil.” See, e. g.. Fisher v. Baker, 203 U. S. 174, 181 (1906). But the label is gross and inexact. Essentially, the proceeding is unique. Habeas corpus practice in the federal courts has conformed with civil practice only in a general sense. There is no indication that with respect to pretrial proceedings for the development of evidence, habeas corpus practice had conformed to the practice at law or in equity “to the extent” that the application of rules newly developed in 1938 to govern discovery in “civil” cases should apply in order to avoid a divergence in practice which had theretofore been substantially uniform. Although there is little direct evidence, relevant to the present problem, of the purpose of the “conformity” provision of Rule 81 (a)(2), the concern of the draftsmen, as a general matter, seems to have been to provide for the continuing applicability of the “civil” rules in their new form to those areas of practice in habeas corpus and other enumerated proceedings in which the “specified” proceedings had theretofore utilized the modes of civil practice. Otherwise, those proceedings were to be considered outside of the scope of the rules without prejudice, of course, to the use of particular rules by analogy or otherwise, where appropriate.

Such specific evidence as there is with respect to the intent of the draftsmen of the rules indicates nothing more than a general and nonspecific understanding that the rules would have very limited application to habeas corpus proceedings. At the very least, it is clear that there was no intention to extend to habeas corpus, as a matter of right, the broad discovery provisions which, even in ordinary civil litigation, were “one of the most significant innovations” of the new rules. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495, 500 (1947). Walker does not claim that there was any general discovery practice in habeas corpus proceedings prior to adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In considering the intended application of the new rules to habeas corpus, it is illuminating to note that in 1938 the expansion of federal habeas corpus to its present scope was only in its early stages. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103 (1935): Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938); Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101 (1942). It was not until many years later that the federal courts considering a habeas corpus petition were held to be required in many cases to make an independent determination of the factual basis of claims that state convictions had violated the petitioner’s federal constitutional rights. Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963). In these circumstances it is readily understandable that, as indicated by the language and the scanty contemporary exegesis of Rule 81 (a) (2) which is available, the draftsmen of the rule did not contemplate that the discovery-provisions of the rules would be applicable to habeas corpus proceedings.

It is also of some relevance that in 1948, when Congress enacted 28 U. S'. C. § 2246 expressly referring to the right of parties in habeas corpus proceedings to propound written interrogatories, its legislation was limited to interrogatories for the purpose of obtaining evidence from affiants where affidavits were admitted in evidence. Again, the restricted scope of this legislation indicates that the adoption in 1938 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not intended to make available in habeas corpus proceedings the discovery provisions of those rules.

Indeed, it is difficult to believe that the draftsmen of the Rules or Congress would have applied the discovery rules without modification to habeas corpus proceedings because their specific provisions are ill-suited to the special problems and character of such proceedings. For example, Rule 33, which Walker here invoked, provides for written interrogatories to be served by any party upon any “adverse party.” As the present case illustrates, this would usually mean that the prisoner’s interrogatories must be directed to the warden although the warden would be unable to answer from personal knowledge questions relating to petitioner’s arrest and trial. Presumably the warden could solicit answers from the appropriate officials and reply “under oath,” as the rule requires; but the warden is clearly not the kind of “adverse party” contemplated by the discovery rules, and the result of their literal application would be to invoke a procedure which is circuitous, burdensome, and time consuming.

The scope of interrogatories which may be served under Rule 33 also indicates the unsuitability of applying to habeas corpus provisions which were drafted without reference to its peculiar problems.

By reference to Rule 26 (b), the rule would give the prisoner a right to inquire into “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,” whether admissible at trial or not. This rule has been generously construed to provide a great deal of latitude for discovery. See Hickman v. Taylor, supra, at 507; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, supra, § 646. Such a broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding.

Except for interrogatories to be served by the “plaintiff” within 10 days after the commencement of “the action,” Rule 33 provides that the interrogatories may be served without leave of court. The “adverse party” must then take the initiative to contest the interrogatories and a hearing in court on his objections is required. Unavoidably, unless there is a measure of responsibility in the originator of the proceeding, the “plaintiff” or petitioner, this procedure can be exceedingly burdensome and vexatious. The interrogatory procedure would be available to the prisoners themselves since most habeas petitions are prepared and filed by prisoners, generally without the guidance or restraint of members of the bar. For this reason, too, we conclude that the literal application of Rule 33 to habeas corpus proceedings would do violence to the efficient and effective administration of the Great Writ. The burden upon courts, prison officials, prosecutors, and police, which is necessarily and properly incident to the processing and adjudication of habeas corpus proceedings, would be vastly increased; and the benefit to prisoners would be counterbalanced by the delay which the elaborate discovery procedures would necessarily entail.

It is true that the availability of Rule 33 would provide prisoners with an instrument of discovery which could be activated on their own initiative, without prior court approval, and that this would be of considerable tactical advantage to them in the prosecution of their efforts to demonstrate such error in their trial as would result in their release. But despite the forceful and ingenious argument of Walker’s counsel and amici curiae, this consideration cannot carry the day. It is a long march from this contention to a conclusion that the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were intended to extend to habeas corpus proceedings. We have no power to rewrite the Rules by judicial interpretations. We have no power to decide that Rule 33 applies to habeas corpus proceedings unless, on conventional principles of statutory construction, we can properly conclude that the literal language or the intended effect of the Rules indicates that this was within the purpose of the draftsmen or the congressional understanding.

IV.

To conclude that the Federal Rules’ discovery provisions do not apply completely and automatically by virtue of Rule 81 (a)(2) is not to say that there is no way in which a district court may, in an appropriate case, arrange for procedures which will allow development, for purposes of the hearing, of the facts relevant to disposition of a habeas corpus petition. Petitioners in habeas corpus proceedings, as the Congress and this Court have emphasized, and as we have discussed, supra, at 290-292, are entitled to careful consideration and plenary processing of their claims including full opportunity for presentation of the relevant facts. Congress has provided that once a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed, unless the court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to an order to show cause, the writ must be awarded “forthwith,” or an order to show cause must be issued. 28 U. S. C. § 2243. Thereafter, if the .court concludes that the petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary-hearing, cf. Townsend v. Sain, supra; 28 U. S. C. § 2254, it shall order one to be held promptly. 28 U. S. C. § 2243.

Flexible provision is made for taking evidence by oral testimony, by deposition, or upon affidavit and written interrogatory. 28 U. S. C. § 2246. Cf. §§ 2245, 2254 (e). The court shall “summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 28 U. S. C. § 2243. But with respect to methods for securing facts where necessary to accomplish the objective of the proceedings Congress has been largely silent. Clearly, in these circumstances, the habeas corpus jurisdiction and the duty to exercise it being present, the courts may fashion appropriate modes of procedure, by analogy to existing rules or otherwise in conformity with judicial usage. Where their duties require it, this is the inescapable obligation of the courts. Their authority is expressly confirmed in the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651. This statute has served since its inclusion, in substance, in the original Judiciary Act as a “legislatively approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve ‘the rational ends of law.' ” Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 282 (1948), quoting Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 273 (1942). It has been recognized that the courts may rely upon this statute in issuing orders appropriate to assist them in conducting factual inquiries. American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 221 U. S. 603,609 (1911) (subpoenas duces tecum); Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. NLRB, 120 F. 2d 126, 127 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1941) (order that certain documents be produced for the purpose of pretrial discovery). In Price v. Johnston, supra, this Court held explicitly that the purpose and function of the All Writs Act to supply the courts with the instruments needed to perform their duty, as prescribed by the Congress and the Constitution, provided only that such instruments are “agreeable” to the usages and principles of law, extend to habeas corpus proceedings.

At any time in the proceedings, when the court considers that it is necessary to do so in order that a fair and meaningful evidentiary hearing may be held so that the court may properly “dispose of the matter as law and justice require,” either on its own motion or upon cause shown by the petitioner, it may issue such writs and take or authorize such proceedings with respect to development, before or in conjunction with the hearing of the facts relevant to the claims advanced by the parties, as may be “necessary or appropriate in aid of [its jurisdiction] . . . and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U. S. C. § 1651.

We do not assume that courts in the exercise of their discretion will pursue or authorize pursuit of all allegations presented to them. We are aware that confinement sometimes induces fantasy which has its basis in the paranoia of prison rather than in fact. But where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is confined illegally and is therefore entitled to relief, it is the duty of the court to provide the necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry. Obviously, in exercising this power, the court may utilize familiar procedures, as appropriate, whether these are found in the civil or criminal rules or elsewhere in the “usages and principles of law.”

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Black,

dissenting.

I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding in this case, Wilson v. Harris, 378 F. 2d 141, that 28 U. S. C. § 2246 does not authorize discovery in habeas corpus proceedings. Upon affirmance I would not go further and write what appears to me to be in effect an advisory opinion directing the trial court to formulate some kind of new legal system for discovery in this kind of case. Fully agreeing with the Court’s statement that “[w]e have no power to rewrite the Rules by judicial interpretations,” I go further and doubt that we have power to direct lower courts to write new laws providing for discovery in habeas corpus cases. This is a complicated field of law making and I think we should not enter this field in the absence of some valid delegation of legislative power by the Congress. Since I cannot agree that. Congress has granted us such power, I am unable to go along with the Court’s opinion.

There have been many complaints among members of the bar about many Court-made rules of procedure and I would venture the suggestion that in no field have the number of those complaints exceeded the complaints in this particular field of discovery. I regret that I cannot “assume,” with the Court, that given blanket authority, “courts in the exercise of their discretion will [not] pursue or authorize pursuit of all allegations presented to them.” This case makes me skeptical about such an assumption. Here Walker was convicted in a state court of having marihuana in his possession. After exhausting all state remedies he asked the federal courts to let him out of jail. He apparently did not allege his innocence, does not now do so, and this Court apparently does not now consider the question of guilt or innocence in this case. What he does allege is that the trial court made an error in admitting certain evidence against him. It is not alleged that the evidence was not relevant against him or that the verdict resting on that evidence was not a truthful, honest verdict. We must, therefore, assume that he was and is guilty of the crime of which he was convicted. See my dissent in Kaufman v. United States, ante, p. 231, decided today. What is relevant, however, and all that is alleged, is that the evidence used against him, presumably the marihuana, was found on his premises as the result of a search made after a statement by a person to a policeman, which statement the allegations now charge “was not shown to have been reliable” and which was made by a person “who was in fact unreliable.” It may be possible that a new trial over this issue can establish that the person telling the officer that marihuana could be found on Walker’s premises was an “unreliable” person and that the statement he made was also “unreliable.” But the fact remains that the marihuana was found where the unreliable person’s unreliable statement told the officer it would be found. Consequently it appears to me that the present case against a defendant whose guilt has been proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt should not be taken as an appropriate one on which this Court lays the groundwork for a new and vast judicial legislative rule-making program.

Perhaps it might not be considered amiss mildly to suggest that in cases like this, where records contain no question at all about guilt, some convictions should at some time be treated as final and no longer subject to challenge, at least by collateral attack. Although I admit that Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969), and other recent cases go a long way, I had not previously thought that even these cases could support what the Court is doing in this case.

Mb. Justice Harlan,

whom Mr. Justice White joins,

dissenting.

I agree that neither Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor any statute authorizes the interrogatories sought in this case. I further agree that district courts do have power to require discovery when essential to render a habeas corpus proceeding effective. But I would make it explicit that such power is narrow and should be exercised sparingly, and would not set the district courts “at large,” as I fear today’s opinion may be taken to do.

I.

This case furnishes an apt illustration of the differences between my viewpoint and what seems to be that of the majority. As stated more fully in the Court's opinion, ante, at 288-289, Walker claimed that marihuana admitted at his trial was seized incident to an arrest which was based upon information supplied by an unreliable informant. After the District Court had ordered an evi-dentiary hearing, Walker directed to the respondent warden a series of interrogatories designed to establish the unreliability of the informant. The interrogatories asked whether the officer who arrested Walker had made previous arrests or searches on the basis of information given by the same informant; if so, whether such arrests or searches resulted in convictions; and whether the informant had ever supplied information which the officer considered unreliable.

It seems apparent that this discovery was not essential to an adequate habeas proceeding. All of the information sought was known to the arresting officer. Walker knew the officer’s identity; in fact, the officer had testified at the preliminary hearing and at trial on the very issue of the informant’s reliability. Hence, there is no reason to believe that all of the information could not have been obtained by calling the officer as a witness at the habeas hearing. Although I realize that the parties have not directed their arguments to this precise question, I am satisfied that on the face of things Walker cannot possibly show that this discovery is essential to a fair proceeding. Accordingly, I would affirm outright the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

II.

The more troublesome aspect of the Court’s opinion is its long-run implications. For it can be taken as suggesting that the best solution to the problem of discovery in habeas corpus proceedings is to permit each district court to devise “appropriate modes of procedure” on a case-by-case basis. As regards the immediate future, a case-by-case approach may be unavoidable, since there is at present no body of applicable discovery rules and the district courts must have power to order discovery which is essential to effective disposition of habeas applications. But I consider that from a broader standpoint the problem of habeas discovery should be dealt with not case by case but through exercise of our rule-making power. See 28 U. S. C. § 2072.

There are several reasons for believing that a case-by-case approach will be unsatisfactory in the long range. It seems to me that in fairness both to habeas petitioners and to their adversaries, the discovery procedures which are available in such actions should be uniform throughout the federal system and not dependent upon the varying “discovery attitudes” of particular district judges. If discovery procedures are developed case by case, there will at the least be a very long period during which procedures will differ from district to district. Even assuming that a coherent body of rules finally will emerge because of the unifying influence of appellate decisions, it is unlikely that the rules thus generated will be the best that could have been devised. Appellate courts, including this one, are imperfectly informed both about the extent of the need for additional discovery in habeas corpus and about the procedures best suited to meet those needs and to achieve prompt dispatch of habeas proceedings. They are, therefore, poorly situated to lay down guidelines for the district courts. Moreover, discovery rules fashioned in the course of day-to-day adjudication are likely to suffer from the limitations which accompany that process.

Such considerations lead me to think that, in the longer view, the formulation of discovery rules can best be accomplished through use of the power which Congress has conferred upon us to establish general rules governing civil procedure in the federal district courts. By using this method of rule making, the advice of the Judicial Conference of the United States and its appropriate advisory committees could be obtained. These bodies are well equipped to assess the dimensions of the discovery problem and devise apt solutions. Their deliberations would be free from the time pressures and piecemeal character of case-by-case adjudication. And the resulting rules would be uniform throughout the federal system.

My conviction that this would be the best course is strengthened by recollection of our decision in Miner v. Atlass, 363 U. S. 641 (1960), and the events which followed. In Miner we held that a District Court sitting in admiralty had no power to order the taking of an oral discovery deposition. Responding to a suggestion in our opinion, see 363 U. S., at 651, and to earlier stirrings at the bar, the Judicial Conference and the Advisory Committee on General Admiralty Rules swiftly proposed new Admiralty Rules authorizing certain additional kinds of discovery, including oral depositions. After approval by this Court and submission to Congress, as required by statute, the new Admiralty Rules went into effect a little more than a year after our decision. There is no reason to think that the Judicial Conference and the advisory committees would not be equally cooperative in this instance.

For the reasons stated in Part I of this opinion, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.

Mr. Justice Stewart,

dissenting.

I concur with most of what is said in the Court’s opinion, but cannot concur in its judgment.

I wholly agree that Rule 33 is inapplicable to habeas corpus proceedings. Contrary to my Brother Harlan, I further agree that federal judges in carrying out their duty to dispose of habeas corpus applications “as law and justice require,” 28 U. S. C. § 2243, should not be inhibited by inflexibly formalized procedural rules. In getting at the facts in such cases, the district courts should be given wide leeway for “discretion to exercise their common sense.” Machibroda v. United States, 368 U. S. 487, 495.

However, for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissenting opinion today in Kaufman v. United States, ante, p. 242, which I have joined, I would affirm the judgment in the present case.

       Some courts have joined the Ninth Circuit in holding the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules wholly inapplicable to habeas corpus proceedings. E. g., Sullivan v. United States, 198 F. Supp. 624, 625-627 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1961). On other occasions it has been held that the Rules apply only by “analogy.” Wilson v. Weigel, 387 F. 2d 632, 634, n. 3 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1967); cf. United States ex rel. Jelic v. District Director of Immigration, 106 F. 2d 14, 20 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1939) (opinion by Judge Clark, who served as Reporter of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Several courts have held the Rules applicable because habeas is characterized generally as a “civil” proceeding. E. g., United States ex rel. Seals v. Wiman, 304 F. 2d 53, 64 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1962); cf. Schiebelhut v. United States, 318 F. 2d 785, 786 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1963) (28 U. S. C. §2255 action). Some courts have sustained the use of particular discovery rules under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as necessary to effectuate statutory policy with respect to habeas corpus. E. g., Knowles v. Gladden, 254 F. Supp. 643, 644-645 (D. C. Ore. 1965), aff’d, 378 F. 2d 761 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1967). Others have apparently assumed that the rules applied to habeas without discussion of the question. E. g., Fortner v. Balkcom, 380 F. 2d 816, 818 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1967).

       3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *131 (Lewis ed. 1902). See generally Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 399-415 (1963). Cf. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 346 (Holmes, J., joined by Hughes, J., dissenting) (1915), “[H]abeas corpus cuts through all forms and goes to the very tissue of the structure. It comes in from the outside . . . and although every form may have been preserved opens the inquiry whether they have been more than an empty shell.”

       Rule 81 (a) (2) was amended, effective July 1, 1968, to read, “These rules are applicable to proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice in civil actions.” The amendment merely eliminated references to appellate procedure made inappropriate by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and does not affect the issue before us. See Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 43 F. R. D. 61, 164 (explanatory note to the proposed revision of Rule 81 (a) (2)).

       The degree to which this characterization excessively simplifies a complex history is discussed in Cohen, Some Considerations on the Origins of Habeas Corpus, 16 Can. B. Rev. 92 (1938), and Cohen, Habeas Corpus Cum Causa — The Emergence of the Modem Writ, 18 Can. B. Rev. 10, 172 (1940). Cf. Sullivan v. United States, 198 F. Supp. 624 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1961).

       The federal courts have applied some noncontroversial rules in habeas corpus proceedings. E. g., Rule 6 (b)(2), extension of time for excusable neglect, Bowen v. Boles, 258 F. Supp. 111 (D. C. N. D. W. Va. 1966); Rule 15 (b), determination of issue not raised by pleadings, Hamilton v. Hunter, 65 F. Supp. 319 (D. C. Kan. 1946). See also 1 W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 131 (C. Wright ed. 1960); Note, Civil Discovery in Habeas Corpus, 67 Col. L. Rev. 1296,1299 (1967). The applicability to habeas corpus of the rules concerning joinder and class actions has engendered considerable debate. See Mitchell v. Schoonfield,
        285 F. Supp. 728 (D. C. Md. 1968); Hill v. Nelson, 272 F. Supp. 790 (D. C. N. D. Calif. 1967); Adderly v. Wainwright, 272 F. Supp. 530 (D. C. M. D. Fla. 1967). Cf. Note, Multiparty Federal Habeas Corpus, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1482 (1968). The only issue before the Court in this case is the applicability to habeas corpus proceedings of those rules which deal with discovery. We intimate no view on whether the Federal Rules may be applicable with respect to other aspects of a habeas corpus proceeding.

       In our consideration of this case, we have been assisted greatly by the briefs of the amici curiae — the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Office for the Rights of the Indigent in support of petitioner, and the United States and the State of New York in support of respondent.

       Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting, agrees that district courts have power to require discovery when essential to render a habeas corpus proceeding effective. He dissents because he would substitute the judgment of this remote Court for that of the District Court as to the need for authorizing discovery in this case. Mr. Justice Harlan then expresses his views as to the desirability of formulating discovery rules under 28 U. S. C. § 2072, applicable to federal habeas and §2255 proceedings. In our view, the desirability of launching rule-making proceedings does not and could not affect the decision in the present case.
      In view of his remarks, however, we have concluded that we should express agreement with our Brother Harlan as to the desirability of rule making in this field. We repeat that it does not follow from this that district judges are without power to enter necessary orders in the absence of rules.
      In fact, it is our view that the rule-making machinery should be invoked to formulate rules of practice with respect to federal habeas corpus and § 2255 proceedings, on a comprehensive basis and not merely one confined to discovery. The problems presented by these proceedings are materially different from those dealt with in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and reliance upon usage and the opaque language of Civil Rule 81 (a) (2) is transparently inadequate. In our view the results of a meticulous formulation and adoption of special rules for federal habeas corpus and § 2255 proceedings would promise much benefit.

       My Brother Stewart bases his dissent in this case upon my own dissenting opinion in Kaufman v. United States, ante, p. 242, in which I have taken the position that in actions brought by federal prisoners under 28 U. S. C. §2255 Fourth Amendment claims should be entertained only upon a showing of “special circumstances.” I prefer to rest my disagreement with the result in this case upon other grounds, for two reasons. First, this case is not on all fours with Kaufman, since this was a federal habeas action by a state prisoner rather than an action by a federal prisoner under § 2255. The Kaufman question has not been briefed or argued in this case, and there may conceivably be significant distinctions between the two types of proceedings. See, e. g., Amsterdam, Search, Seizure, and Section 2255: A Comment, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 378 (1964). Second, although this case happens, like Kaufman, to involve a search-and-seizure issue, the Court’s reasoning here plainly applies to all claims cognizable on federal habeas corpus. Hence, it seems appropriate to rest my dissent upon broader grounds, which also appeal to my Brother White.

       For a brief account of the role played by these bodies in the making of civil rules, see Kaplan, Continuing Work of the Civil Committee: 1966 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (I), 81 Harv. L. Rev. 356, 357-358 (1967).

       See 28 U. S. C. §2072, which also specifies that the proposed rules shall not take effect for 90 days after they have been reported to Congress.

       See Admiralty Rules 30A-30G, 32, 32B-32D, which were either added or amended effective July 19, 1961.

      The Machibroda case arose under 28 U. S. C. § 2255, the statutory counterpart of habeas corpus. In the circumstances there presented, we pointed out that “many of the material allegations can either be corroborated or disproved by the visitors’ records of the county jail where the petitioner was confined, the mail records of the penitentiary to which he was sent, and other such sources.” 368 U. S., at 495.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    DuVERNAY v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 814.
    Argued February 27, 1969.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      Benjamin E. Smith argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Arthur Kinoy and Morton Stavis.

      John S. Martin, Jr., argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Philip R. Monahan.

      Ann Fagan Ginger filed a brief for the National Lawyers Guild as amicus curiae urging reversal.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


author: Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Stewart,

text:
    GIORDANO v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 28.
    Decided March 24, 1969

      Carlton Roeser for petitioner in No. 28. Irving Anolik for petitioner in No. 54. Maurice Edelbaum for petitioner Franzese, William L. Lynch for petitioner Crabbe, Raymond A. Brown for petitioner Matera, and Peter L. F. Sabbatino for petitioner Potere in No. 84. Raymond J.

      Smith and Morris A. Haft for petitioner in No. 106. Maurice J. Walsh and John Powers Crowley for petitioner in No. 124. Charles A. Bellows for petitioner in No. 129. Ediuard Bennett Williams, Harold Ungar, Steven M. Umin, and Mr. Walsh for petitioner in No. 168. Charles Morgan, Jr., Howard Moore, Jr., George Pontikes, Marvin Karpatkin, Melvin L. Wulf, and Eleanor H. Norton for petitioner in No. 271. Edward J. Caliban, Jr., Mr. Crowley, and Robert S. Bailey for petitioners in No. 317. Anthony J. DeMarie for petitioner in No. 474. Morris A. Shenker, Joseph A. Fanelli, Jacques M. Schiffer, Cecil D. Branstetter, and Daniel B. Maher for petitioners in No. 546. Clyde W. Woody and Marian S. Rosen for petitioner in No. 668. Herald Price Fahringer and Frank G. Raichle for petitioner in No. 715. Messrs. Walsh and Shenker for petitioner Hoffa, George Callaghan for petitioner Strate, Richard E. Gorman for petitioner Burris, Mr. Schiffer for petitioner Weinblatt, and Harvey M. Silets for petitioner Kovens in No. 895. Frank Ragano for petitioner in No. 911.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States in No. 28. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States in No. 54. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Miss Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States in Nos. 84, 271, and 317. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Miss Rosenberg for the United States in Nos. 106, 129, and 168. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Miss Rosenberg, and Leonard H. Dickstein for the United States in No. 124. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit, and Mr. Glazer for the United States in No. 474. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson,

      Theodore George Gilinsky, and Mr. Pauley for the United States in No. 546. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Miss Rosenberg, and Paul C. Summitt for the United States in No. 668. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Mr. Feit, and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States in No. 715. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Miss Rosenberg, and Mr. Feit for the United States in Nos. 895 and 911.

      Together with No. 54, Scandifia v. United States; No. 84, Franzese et al. v. United States; No. 106, Evans v. United States; No. 124, Aiuppa v. United States; No. 129, Amabile v. United States; No. 168, Battaglia v. United States; No. 271, Clay, aka Ali v. United States; No. 317, Di Pietto et al. v. United States; No. 474, Natarelli v. United States; No. 546, Hoffa et al. v. United States; No. 668, Stassi v. United States; No. 715, Randaccio v. United States; No. 895, Hoffa et al. v. United States; and No. 911, Dranow v. United States, also on petitions for writs of certiorari. Nos. 54, 84, 474, and 715 are to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Nos. 271 and 668 are to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; No. 546 is to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Nos. 106, 129, 168, 317, 895, and 911 are to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and No. 124 is to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

   Per Curiam.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, except that in No. 84 the writ is granted as to petitioner Franzese only and denied as to the other petitioners, and in No. 317 the petition is granted as to petitioners Mirro and McDonnell only and denied as to the other petitioners. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals in these cases are vacated, and the cases remanded to the respective District Courts for further proceedings in conformity with Alderman v. United States, Ivanov v. United States, and Butenko v. United States, ante, p. 165. It is not evident from the records in some of these cases whether the surveillances at issue were unlawful. It may be that the overhearings in some instances were not achieved by trespass, see Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967); Desist v. United States, ante, p. 244, and Kaiser v. New York, ante, p. 280, or for some other reasons were not unlawful. As we held in Alderman, Ivanov, and Butenko, ante, at 170, n. 3, “the District Court must develop the relevant facts and decide if the Government’s electronic surveillance was unlawful.” Of course, a finding by the District Court that the surveillance was lawful would make disclosure and further proceedings unnecessary. Similarly, it is not clear that each petitioner has standing to assert the illegality of the surveillance or of the introduction of its fruits. As in Alderman, Ivanov, and Butenko, these issues are to be resolved by the District Courts in the first instance.

Mr. Justice Black dissents, except in Nos. 895 and 911, in the consideration and disposition of which he took no part.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or disposition of Nos. 546, 895, and 911.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or disposition of Nos. 28, 106, 129, 168, 271, 546, 895, and 911.

Mr. Justice Stewart,

concurring.

A few words in amplification of this per curiam opinion may help to avoid misunderstanding on the part of the litigants, and of the District Courts to which these cases are remanded.

As we made explicit in Alderman, Butenko, and Ivanov, the requirement that certain products of governmental electronic surveillance be turned over to defense counsel was expressly limited to situations where the surveillance had violated the Fourth Amendment. We did not decide in those cases, and we do not decide in these, that any of the surveillances did violate the Fourth Amendment. Instead, we have left that threshold question for the District Courts to decide in all these cases.

Moreover, we did not in Alderman, Butenko, or Ivanov, and we do not today, specify the procedure that the District Courts are to follow in making this preliminary determination. We have nowhere indicated that this determination cannot appropriately be made in ex parte, in camera proceedings. “Nothing in Alderman v. United States, Ivanov v. United States, or Butenko v. United States, ante, p. 165, requires an adversary proceeding and full disclosure for resolution of every issue raised by an electronic surveillance.” Taglianetti v. United States, post, p. 316.

Finally, the Court has not in any of these cases addressed itself to the standards governing the constitutionality of electronic surveillance relating to the gathering of foreign intelligence information — necessary for the conduct of international affairs, and for the protection of national defense secrets and installations from foreign espionage and sabotage. Mr. Justice White has elsewhere made clear his view that such surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment, “if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.” While two members of the Court have indicated disagreement with that view, the issue remains open.

One might suppose that all of this should be entirely clear to any careful reader of the Court’s opinion in Alderman, Butenko, and Ivanov. Perhaps so, and perhaps, therefore, what I have said is quite unnecessary. But 10 years of experience here have taught me that the most carefully written opinions are not always carefully read — even by those most directly concerned.

       We read the papers filed by the United States in these two cases as stating that the surveillances neither invaded the premises of the other petitioners nor overheard their conversations.

       In oral argument of the Butenko and Ivanov cases, the Solicitor General, mystifyingly, sought to concede that the surveillances there were in fact unconstitutional, although he was repeatedly invited to argue that they were not. The following colloquies during oral argument of the Ivanov case are illustrative:
      “Q. Are you asking us to decide- here or to leave open on remand the question as to whether this violates, this bugging in this particular case, violates the Fourth Amendment?
      “A. Our position would be the same had it or not. We are not arguing that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

      “Q. In other words, the premise in which you are proceeding here is that you admit for the purposes of this case that this was illegal bugging?
      “A. Yes, Mr. Justice.

      “Q. And you are going to remain free to argue to the district judge that there was no violation?

        “A. No, sir.”
      In deciding those cases, the Court declined to accept the Solicitor General’s proffered concession.

        Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 364 (White, J., concurring).

         Id., at 359 (Douglas, J., concurring).

       See id., at 358, n. 23.


text:
    TAGLIANETTI v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 446.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      Raymond LaFazia for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Rogovin for the United States.
   Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Following a jury trial in the District Court, petitioner was convicted on three counts of wilfully attempting to evade his income tax for the years 1956, 1957, and 1958. Following a remand to the District Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. In the District Court on remand, the Government purported to turn over to petitioner all of his own conversations which had been overheard by means of unlawful electronic surveillance. Petitioner argues that he was entitled to examine additional surveillance records because neither the Government nor the District Court was able to determine with certainty which conversations petitioner had been a party to. In fact, the District Court examined all the records in camera to ascertain if the Government had correctly identified petitioner’s voice and had turned over to petitioner each conversation in which he had participated.

Nothing in Alderman v. United States, Ivanov v. United States, or Butenko v. United States, ante, p. 165, requires an adversary proceeding and full disclosure for resolution of every issue raised by an electronic surveillance. On the contrary, an adversary proceeding and disclosure were required in those eases, not for lack of confidence in the integrity of government counsel or the trial judge, but only because the in camera procedures at issue there would have been an inadequate means to safeguard a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Here the defendant was entitled to see a transcript of his own conversations and nothing else. He had no right to rummage in government files. The trial court was asked to identify only those instances of surveillance which petitioner had standing to challenge under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and to double-check the accuracy of the Government’s voice identifications. Under the circumstances presented here, we cannot hold that “the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court.” Alderman v. United States, supra, at 182.

MR. Justice Black concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.

       Although this petition for certiorari was not filed within the 30 days allowed by the Court’s Rule 22 (2), the time limitation is not jurisdictional, Heflin v. United States, 358 U. S. 415, 418, n. 7 (1959), and does not bar our exercise of discretion to consider this case.

       Petitioner sought disclosure only of his own conversations and apparently lacks standing as to any others. “We do not understand appellant to argue that he has a right to inspect logs or memos of conversations in which he was not a participant. Indeed, that point he wisely conceded before the district court.” 398 F. 2d 568, 571.


text:
    SHAKESPEARE et al. v. ZERVOS.
    No. 823.
    Decided March 24, 1969.
   Per Curiam.

The motions to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement and for leave to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement are granted. The motion for transmittal of exhibits is denied.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    MAYHUE’S SUPER LIQUOR STORES, INC. v. MEIKLEJOHN, DIRECTOR, BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, et al.
    No. 904.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      Daniel S. Pearson for appellant.

      T. T. Turnbull, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    WOODS v. CALIFORNIA.
    No. 1006.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      Burton Marks for appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    BOEING CO. v. HAMM, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF ALABAMA.
    No. 1017.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      John Bingham for appellant.

      MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General of Alabama, and Willard W. Livingston and William H. Burton, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    IN RE GROSS.
    No. 1035.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      Burton Marks for appellant.

      Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey, and Michael T. Sauer for the State of California.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


text:
    FEDERAL-BRYANT MACHINERY CO. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF ILLINOIS.
    No. 1069.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      Harry H. Ruskin for appellant.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, and Francis T. Crowe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    McINNIS et al. v. OGILVIE, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, et al.
    No. 1033.
    Decided March 24, 1969.

      Stanley A. Bass for appellants.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, and Francis T. Crowe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

      Arthur H. Dean, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Frederick A. Ballard, John B. Jones, Jr., and William B. Beebe for the Urban Coalition et al. as amici curiae, and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., John Silard, Elliott C. Lichtman, Benjamin V. Cohen, J. Albert Woll, Thomas E. Harris, John Ligten-berg, Stephen I. Schlossberg, Derrick A. Bell, Jr., and Harold W. Horowitz for the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations et al. as amici curiae. Briefs of amici curiae were also filed by San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation et al. and by Coons et al.
   Per Curiam.

The motions of Urban Coalition et al., American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations et al., John E. Coons et al., and San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation et al., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae are granted.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.


text:
    CAMPBELL v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSN.
    No. 1324,
    Misc.
    Decided March 24, 1969.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


author: Mr. Justice Black Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice White,

text:
    OROZCO v. TEXAS.
    No. 641.
    Argued February 26, 1969.
    Decided March 25, 1969.

      Charles W. Tessmer argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

      Lonny F. Zwiener, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Hawthorne Phillips, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Flowers, Assistant Attorney General, and W. V. Ceppert.

   Mr. Justice Black

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, Reyes Arias Orozco, was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas, of murder without malice and was sentenced to serve in the state prison not less than two nor more than 10 years. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction, rejecting petitioner’s contention that a material part of the evidence against him was obtained in violation of the provision of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, that: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

The evidence introduced at trial showed that petitioner and the deceased had quarreled outside the El Farleto Cafe in Dallas shortly before midnight on the date of the shooting. The deceased had apparently spoken to petitioner’s female companion inside the restaurant. In the heat of the quarrel outside, the deceased is said to have beaten petitioner about the face and called him “Mexican Grease.” A shot was fired killing the deceased. Petitioner left the scene and returned to his boardinghouse to sleep. At about 4 a. m. four police officers arrived at petitioner’s boardinghouse, were admitted by an unidentified woman, and were told that petitioner was asleep in the bedroom. All four officers entered the bedroom and began to question petitioner. From the moment he gave his name, according to the testimony of one of the officers, petitioner was not free to go where he pleased but was “under arrest.” The officers asked him if he had been to the El Farleto restaurant that night and when he answered “yes” he was asked if he owned a pistol. Petitioner admitted owning one. After being asked a second time where the pistol was located, he admitted that it was in the washing machine in a backroom of the boardinghouse. Ballistics tests indicated that the gun found in the washing machine was the gun that fired the fatal shot. At petitioner’s trial, held after the effective date of this Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), the trial court allowed one of the officers, over the objection of petitioner's lawyer, to relate the statements made by petitioner concerning the gun and petitioner's presence at the scene of the shooting. The trial testimony clearly shows that the officers questioned petitioner about incriminating facts without first informing him of his right to remain silent, his right to have the advice of a lawyer before making any statement, and his right to have a lawyer appointed to assist him if he could not afford to hire one. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held, with one judge dissenting, that the admission of testimony concerning the statements petitioner had made without the above warnings was not precluded by Miranda. We disagree and hold that the use of these admissions obtained in the absence of the required warnings was a flat violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment as construed in Miranda.

The State has argued here that since petitioner was interrogated on his own bed, in familiar surroundings, our Miranda holding should not apply. It is true that the Court did say in Miranda that “compulsion to speak in the isolated setting of the police station may well be greater than in courts or other official investigations, where there are often impartial observers to guard against intimidation or trickery.” 384 U. S., at 461. But the opinion iterated and reiterated the absolute necessity for officers interrogating people “in custody” to give the described warnings. See Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 (1968). According to the officer’s testimony, petitioner was under arrest and not free to leave when he was questioned in his bedroom in the early hours of the morning. The Miranda opinion declared that the warnings were required when the person being interrogated was “in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” 384 U. S., at 477. (Emphasis supplied.) The decision of this Court in Miranda was reached after careful consideration and lengthy opinions were announced by both the majority and dissenting Justices. There is no need to canvass those arguments again. We do not, as the dissent implies, expand or extend to the slightest extent our Miranda decision. We do adhere to our well-considered holding in that case and therefore reverse the conviction below.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

concurring.

The passage of time has not made the Miranda case any more palatable to me than it was when the case was decided. See my dissenting opinion, and that of Mr. Justice White, in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 604, 526 (1966).

Yet, despite my strong inclination to join in the dissent of my Brother White, I can find no acceptable avenue of escape from Miranda in judging this case, especially in light of Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 (1968), which has already extended the Miranda rules beyond the police station, over the protest of Justices Stewart, White, and myself, id., at 5-8. Therefore, and purely out of respect for stare decisis, I reluctantly feel compelled to acquiesce in today’s decision of the Court, at the same time observing that the constitutional condemnation of this perfectly understandable, sensible, proper, and indeed commendable piece of police work highlights the unsoundness of Miranda.

Mr. Justice White,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins,

dissenting.

This decision carries the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), to a new and unwarranted extreme. I continue to believe that the original rule amounted to a “constitutional strait jacket” on law enforcement which was justified neither by the words or history of the Constitution, nor by any reasonable view of the likely benefits of the rule as against its disadvantages. 384 U. S., at 526. Even accepting Miranda, the Court extends the rule here and draws the straitjacket even tighter.

The opinion of the Court in Miranda was devoted in large part to an elaborate discussion of the subtle forms of psychological pressure which could be brought to bear when an accused person is interrogated at length in unfamiliar surroundings. The “salient features” of the cases decided in Miranda were “incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere.” 384 U. S., at 445. The danger was that in such circumstances the confidence of the prisoner could be eroded by techniques such as successive interrogations by police acting out friendly or unfriendly roles. These techniques are best developed in “isolation and unfamiliar surroundings,” 384 U. S., at 450. And they take time: “the major qualities an interrogator should possess are patience and perseverance.” Ibid. The techniques of an extended period of isolation, repeated interrogation, cajolery, and trickery often enough produced admissions which were actually coerced in the traditional sense so that new safeguards were deemed essential.

It is difficult to believe that the requirements there laid down were essential to prevent compulsion in every conceivable case of station house interrogation. Where the defendant himself as a lawyer, policeman, professional criminal, or otherwise has become aware of what his right to silence is, it is sheer fancy to assert that his answer to every question asked him is compelled unless he is advised of those rights with which he is already intimately familiar. If there is any warrant to Miranda at all, it rests on the likelihood that in a sufficient number of cases exposure to station house practices will result in compelled confessions and that additional safeguards should be imposed in all cases to prevent possible erosion of Fifth Amendment values. Hence, the detailed ritual which Miranda fashioned.

The Court now extends the same rules to all instances of in-custody questioning outside the station house. Once arrest occurs, the application of Miranda is automatic. The rule is simple but it ignores the purpose of Miranda to guard against what was thought to be the corrosive influence of practices which station house interrogation makes feasible. The Court wholly ignores the question whether similar hazards exist or even are possible when police arrest and interrogate on the spot, whether it be on the street corner or in the home, as in this case. No predicate is laid for believing that practices outside the station house are normally prolonged, carried out in isolation, or often productive of the physical or psychological coercion made so much of in Miranda. It is difficult to imagine the police duplicating in a person’s home or on the street those conditions and practices which the Court found prevalent in the station house and which were thought so threatening to the right to silence. Without such a demonstration, Miranda hardly reaches this case or any cases similar to it.

Here, there was no prolonged interrogation, no unfamiliar surroundings, no opportunity for the police to invoke those procedures which moved the majority in Miranda. In fact, the conversation was by all accounts a very brief one. According to uncontradicted testimony, petitioner was awake when the officers entered his room, and they asked him four questions: his name, whether he had been at the El Farleto, whether he owned a pistol, and where it was. He gave his name, said he had been at the El Farleto, and admitted he owned a pistol without hesitation. He was slow in telling where the pistol was, and the question was repeated. He then took the police to the nearby washing machine where the gun was hidden.

It is unquestioned that this sequence of events in their totality would not constitute coercion in the traditional sense or lead any court to view the admissions as involuntary within the meaning of the rules by which we even now adjudicate claims of coercion relating to pr e-Miranda trials. And, realistically, had Orozco refused to answer the questions asked of him, it seems most unlikely that prolonged interrogation would have followed in petitioner’s own quarters; nothing similar to the station house model invoked by the court would have occurred here. The police had petitioner’s name and description, had ample evidence that he had been at the night club and suspected that he had a gun. Surely had he refused to give his name or answer any other questions, they would have arrested him anyway, searched the house and found the gun, which would have been clearly admissible under all relevant authorities. But the Court insists that this case be reversed for failure to give Miranda warnings.

I cannot accept the dilution of the custody requirements of Miranda to this level, where the hazards to the right to silence are so equivocal and unsupported by experience in a recurring number of cases. Orozco was apprehended in the most familiar quarters, the questioning was brief, and no admissions were made which were not backed up by other evidence. This case does not involve the confession of an innocent man, or even of a guilty man from whom a confession has been wrung by physical abuse or the modern psychological methods discussed in Miranda. These are simply the terse remarks of a man who has been caught, almost in the act. Even if there were reason to encourage suspects to consult lawyers to tell them to be silent before quizzing at the station house, there is no reason why police in the field should have to preface every casual question of a suspect with the full panoply of Miranda warnings. The same danger of coercion is simply not present in such circumstances, and the answers to the questions may as often clear a suspect as help convict him. If the Miranda warnings have their intended effect, and the police are able to get no answers from suspects, innocent or guilty, without arresting them, then a great many more innocent men will be making unnecessary trips to the station house. Ultimately it may be necessary to arrest a man, bring him to the police station, and provide a lawyer, just to discover his name. Even if the man is innocent the process will be an unpleasant one.

Since the Court’s extension of Miranda’s rule takes it into territory where even what rationale there originally was disappears, I dissent.

Memorandum of Mr. Justice Stewart.

Although there is much to be said for Mr. Justice Harlan’s position, I join my Brother White in dissent. It seems to me that those of us who dissented in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, remain free not only to express our continuing disagreement with that decision, but also to oppose any broadening of its impact.

       The state court also rejected a contention that use of the evidence also violated the Fourth Amendment’s provision against unreasonable searches and seizures. Our holding makes it unnecessary for us to consider that contention.

       See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966).

       The State appears to urge that petitioner’s Miranda claim is unreviewable in this Court because the objection made by trial counsel to the officer’s testimony was not sufficiently “specific.” We fail to perceive how this could be an adequate state ground in view of the fact that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals specifically decided that the introduction of petitioner’s statement made to the officers “was not precluded under Miranda v. State of Arizona,” 428 S. W. 2d 666, 672, while the dissenting judge thought that it was.

       In light of some apparent misunderstanding on this point, it is perhaps appropriate to point out once again that a reversal by this Court of a conviction based in part on unconstitutional evidence leaves the State free to retry the defendant without the tainted evidence.