home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
- NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
- being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
- The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
- prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
- See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
-
- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
-
- Syllabus
-
- WILLIAMSON v. UNITED STATES
- certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
- the eleventh circuit
- No. 93-5256. Argued April 25, 1994-Decided June 27, 1994
-
- After Reginald Harris refused to testify at petitioner Williamson's
- federal trial on cocaine possession and distribution charges, the
- District Court ruled that, under Federal Rule of Evidence
- 804(b)(3)'s hearsay exception for statements against penal interest,
- a Drug Enforcement Administration agent could recount two custo-
- dial interviews in which Harris had freely confessed to receiving
- and transporting the drugs in question, but also implicated Wil-
- liamson as the drugs' owner. Williamson was eventually convicted,
- and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.
- 981 F. 2d 1262, vacated and remanded.
- Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court with
- respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-B, concluding:
- 1. The most faithful reading of Rule 804(b)(3)-which renders
- admissible ``statement[s] which . . . so far ten[d] to subject the
- declarant to . . . criminal liability . . . that a reasonable person
- . . . would not have made [them] unless believing [them] to be
- true''-is that it does not allow admission of non-self-inculpatory
- statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that
- is generally self-inculpatory. Although the statutory term ``state-
- ment'' can mean either an extended declaration or a single remark,
- the principle behind the Rule, so far as it is discernible from the
- text, points clearly to the narrower reading, so that only those
- remarks within a confession that are individually self-inculpatory
- are covered. The Rule is founded on the commonsense notion that
- reasonable people, even those who are not especially honest, tend
- not to make self-inculpatory statements unless they believe them
- to be true. This notion does not extend to a confession's non-self-
- inculpatory parts-to parts that are actually self-exculpatory, or to
- collateral statements, even ones that are neutral as to interest. A
- district court may not just assume that a statement is self-inculpa-
- tory because it is part of a fuller confession, especially when the
- statement implicates someone else. The policy expressed in the
- Rule's text is clear enough that it outweighs whatever force lies in
- ambiguous statements contained in the Advisory Committee Notes
- to the Rule. Pp. 4-8.
- 2. The foregoing reading does not eviscerate the against penal
- interest exception. There are many circumstances in which Rule
- 804(b)(3) does allow the admission of statements that inculpate a
- criminal defendant. Even the confessions of arrested accomplices
- may be admissible if they are truly self-inculpatory, rather than
- merely attempts to shift blame or curry favor. The question under
- the Rule is always whether the statement at issue was sufficiently
- against the declarant's penal interest under the Rule's language,
- and this question can only be answered in light of all the sur-
- rounding circumstances. Pp. 8-9.
- Justice O'Connor, joined by Justice Scalia, concluded in Part
- II-C that, on remand, the Court of Appeals must inquire in the
- first instance whether each of the statements in Harris' confession
- was truly self-inculpatory. Pp. 10-11.
- O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered
- the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-B, in
- which Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ.,
- joined, and an opinion with respect to Part II-C, in which Scalia,
- J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed
- an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in
- which Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J.,
- filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Rehnquist,
- C. J., and Thomas, J., joined.
-