Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Davis was convicted of burglary and grand larceny in a state court at a trial in which the court on motion of the prosecution issued a protective order prohibiting the questioning of Richard Green, a key prosecution witness, n1 concerning Green's adjudication as a juvenile delinquent relating to a burglary and his probation status at the time of the events as to which he was to testify. The motion was granted in reliance on a state rule and statute which preserved the confidentiality of juvenile adjudications of delinquency. The evidence against Davis was entirely circumstantial, and the defense wanted to point out to the jury that Green was on probation for robbery, suggesting the possibility that he acted either out of fear or concern for his probationary status. The defense made clear that it did not intend to use Green's juvenile record to impeach his credibility generally, but only as necessary to examine him for any possible bias and prejudice. 'Not only might Green have made a hasty and faulty identification of [Davis] to shift suspicion away from himself as one who robbed the Polar Bar, but Green might have been subject to undue pressure from the police and made his identification under fear of possible parole revocation.' The trial court rejected even this limited use of Green's adjudication, but defense counsel did his best to expose Green's state of mind at the time he discovered the safe. Green, however, made a flat denial to questions whether he was upset by the fact that the safe was found on his property, whether he felt the authorities might suspect him, and whether he felt uncomfortable about it. Asked, 'Did you suspect for a moment that the police might somehow think you were involved in this?', he replied, 'I thought they might ask a few questions is all.' It was elicited that Green was questioned about the incident by the investigating officers. He was then asked, 'Had you ever been questioned like that before by any law enforcement officers?' and answered, 'No.' The prosecution objected, and the court sustained the objection. Thus 'while counsel was permitted to ask Green whether he was biased, counsel was unable to make a record from which to argue why Green might have been biased or otherwise lacked that degree of impartiality expected of a witness at trial.' The Alaska Supreme Court refused to reach the issue of whether the State's policy of preserving the anonymity of a juvenile offender denied Davis his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. It affirmed the conviction on the grounds that the scope of cross-examination allowed was adequate to develop the issue of bias and convey it to the jury. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co