BRASWELL
v.
FLORIDA

U.S. | 1970-10-19
No. 5148
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join,
400 U.S. 873 Supreme Court of the United States (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Due Process

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Process cases and more on FLexlaw

Dissent
Mr. Justice Black,

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari'in this case to hold that Florida cannot enforce a mere proced ’ral rule by denying a criminal defendant his constitutional right to present witnesses on his own behalf. In this assault trial, the defendant asked the judge to invoke the “Witness Rule,” directing prospective witnesses “not [to] permit anyone to discuss [the case] in your presence.” The judge invoked the rule but instructed only those witnesses who were then present. A defense, witness who arrived late missed the instruction, and, unknown to the defendant or his counsel, heard some of the prosecution’s evidence. When the defense later attempted to call this witness to support the defendant’s testimony that the alleged assault was an act of self-defense; the prosecutor objected to the competency of the witness because he had violated the “Witness Rule.” Over the defendant’s objection that the witness would give material testimony in the defendant’s favor, the judge refused to permit the witness to testify.

While the “Witness Rule” has a valid purpose and can contribute to the search, for truth, a breach of the rule cannot be used to deny a criminal defendant his constitutional right to obtain and present witnesses in his favor. U: S. Const., Arndt. VI; cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967). A simple rule of courtroom “fairness” has been misused to destroy a sacred constitutional right.

I would grant certiorari in this case and reverse the conviction below so that the defendant might have the - right to present his. side of the story.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dancy v. State, 259 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
    …2d 1019. It is also recognized that defendant’s violations of certain procedural rules may warrant the judge’s exercise of discretion in ordering the exclusion of a defense witness. Braswell v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 192, cert. den. (1970), 400 U.S. 873, 91 S.Ct. 106, 27 L.Ed.2d 111, reh. den. (1970), 400 U.S. 920, 91 S.Ct. 176, 27 L.Ed.2d 161. We are of the opinion that the lower court abused its discretion in excluding the defense witness, because it was not [*210] clearly shown that there was a…
  • Mason Braswell v. Louie L. Wainwright, 463 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1972)
    …not wish to enter into the stipulation, the writ will issue as directed by the district court.31 Modified and affirmed. . Braswell v. State, 230 So. 2d 192 (Fla. App.Ct.1970). . Braswell v. State, 237 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1970). . Braswell v. State, 400 U.S. 873, 91 S.Ct. 106, 27 L.Ed.2d 111 (1970). . The Court: Any questions on the Rule? Mr. Hacker (prosecutor) : Yes, Your Honor. The Court: Go ahead. By Mr. Hacker: Q. Mr. Rogers, when is the first time you came to Court on this case? [*1150] A. Yesterday…
    1 / 2
  • Alicea v. Gagnon, 675 F.2d 913 (7th Cir. 1982)
    …expressly noted that the prosecuting attorney had no objection to the defendant’s alibi testimony and that the trial court permitted Johns to testify. Id. at 579. Therefore, respondents reliance on Johns is misplaced. . Compare Braswell v. Florida, 400 U.S. 873, 91 S.Ct. 106, 27 L.Ed.2d 111 (1970) (Black, J„ joined by Douglas and Brennan, JJ., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (state cannot enforce a mere procedural rule by denying a criminal defendant his constitutional right to present witnesses in h…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw