|
|
Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo No. 72-1570 Argued February 20, 1974 Decided May 13, 1974 416 U.S. 637
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
During the course of a joint first-degree murder trial, respondent’s codefendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, of which the trial court advised the jury, stating that the trial against respondent would continue. In his summation, the prosecutor stated that respondent and his counsel had said that they
hope that you find him not guilty. I quite frankly think that they hope that you find him guilty of something a little less than first-degree murder.
Respondent’s counsel objected, and later sought an instruction that the remark was improper, and should be disregarded. In its instructions, the trial court, after reemphasizing the prosecutor’s statement that his argument was not evidence, declared that the challenged remark was unsupported, and admonished the jury to ignore it. Respondent was convicted of first-degree murder. The State’s highest court ruled that the prosecutor’s remark, though improper, was not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial, and that the trial court’s instruction sufficed to safeguard respondent’s rights. The District Court denied respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the challenged comment implied that respondent, like his codefendant, had offered to plead guilty to a lesser offense, but was refused, and that the comment was thus potentially so misleading and prejudicial as to deprive respondent of a constitutionally fair trial.
Held: In the circumstances of this case, where the prosecutor’s ambiguous remark in the course of an extended trial was followed by the trial court’s specific disapproving instructions, no prejudice amounting to a denial of constitutional due process was shown. Miler v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, distinguished. Pp. 642-648.
473 F.2d 1236, reversed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN and POWELL, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which WHITE, J., joined, post, p. 648. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in Part II of which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 648.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) in 416 U.S. 637 416 U.S. 638. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NQLB2YYMBP58M5D.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974), in 416 U.S. 637, page 416 U.S. 638. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NQLB2YYMBP58M5D.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974). cited in 1974, 416 U.S. 637, pp.416 U.S. 638. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NQLB2YYMBP58M5D.
|