Williams v. Florida

399 U.S. 78 (1970)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Williams (D), on trial for robbery, filed a 'Motion for a Protective Order,' seeking to be excused from the requirements of Rule 1.200 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On written demand of the prosecuting attorney, D was to give notice in advance of trial if he intends to claim an alibi and to furnish the prosecuting attorney with information as to the place where he claims to have been and with the names and addresses of the alibi witnesses he intends to use. D claims that the rule 'compels D in a criminal case to be a witness against himself' in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The motion was denied. D also filed a pretrial motion to impanel a 12-man jury instead of the six-man jury provided by Florida law in all but capital cases. That motion was denied. D complied with the alibi rule and gave the State the name and address of one Mary Scotty. Mrs. Scotty was summoned to the office of the State Attorney on the morning of the trial, where she gave pretrial testimony. At the trial itself, Mrs. Scotty, D, and D's wife all testified that the three of them had been in Mrs. Scotty's apartment during the time of the robbery. On two occasions during cross-examination of Mrs. Scotty, the prosecuting attorney confronted her with her earlier deposition in which she had given dates and times that in some respects did not correspond with the dates and times given at trial. Mrs. Scotty adhered to her trial story, insisting that she had been mistaken in her earlier testimony. The State also offered in rebuttal the testimony of one of the officers investigating the robbery who claimed that Mrs. Scotty had asked him for directions on the afternoon in question during the time when she claimed to have been in her apartment with D and his wife. D was convicted as charged and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting D's claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.