|
|
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)
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.
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring.
I join fully in MR. JUSTICE WHITE’s opinion for the Court. I see an added benefit to the "notice of alibi" rule in that it will serve important functions by way of disposing of cases without trial in appropriate circumstances -- a matter of considerable importance when courts, prosecution offices, and legal aid and defender agencies are vastly overworked. The prosecutor upon receiving notice will, of course, investigate prospective alibi witnesses. If he finds them reliable and unimpeachable, he will doubtless reexamine his entire case, and this process would very likely lead to dismissal of the charges. In turn, he might be obliged to determine why false charges were instituted and where the breakdown occurred in the examination of evidence that led to a charge.
On the other hand, inquiry into a claimed alibi defense may reveal it to be contrived and fabricated, and the witnesses accordingly subject to impeachment or other attack. In this situation, defense counsel would be obliged to reexamine his case, and, if he found his client has proposed the use of false testimony, either seek to withdraw from the case or try to persuade his client to enter a plea of guilty, possibly by plea discussions which could lead to disposition on a lesser charge.
In either case, the ends of justice will have been served, and the processes expedited. These are the likely consequences of an enlarged and truly reciprocal pretrial disclosure of evidence and the move away from the "sporting contest" idea of criminal justice.
1. See cases cited in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 382 n. 11 (1970) (BLACK, J., dissenting).
2. As I have frequently stated, in my opinion, the Fourteenth Amendment was in part adopted in order to make the provisions of the Bill of Rights fully applicable to the States. See, e.g., Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 (1947) (dissenting opinion). This Court has now held almost all these provisions do apply to the States as well as the Federal Government, including the Fifth Amendment provision involved in this case. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); cases cited in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 382 n. 11 (1970) (BLACK, J., dissenting). When this Court is called upon to consider the meaning of a particular provision of the Bill of Rights -- whether, in a case arising from a state court or a federal one -- it is necessary to look to the specific language of the provision and the intent of the Framers when the Bill of Rights itself was adopted. This approach is necessary not because the Framers intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the States when it was proposed in 1789, but because the application of those provisions to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the original intent be the governing consideration in state, as well as federal, cases.
Contents:
Chicago: Burger, "Burger, J., Concurring," Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) in 399 U.S. 78 399 U.S. 106. Original Sources, accessed March 26, 2025, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4LVS82BFVNRY8JK.
MLA: Burger. "Burger, J., Concurring." Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), in 399 U.S. 78, page 399 U.S. 106. Original Sources. 26 Mar. 2025. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4LVS82BFVNRY8JK.
Harvard: Burger, 'Burger, J., Concurring' in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). cited in 1970, 399 U.S. 78, pp.399 U.S. 106. Original Sources, retrieved 26 March 2025, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4LVS82BFVNRY8JK.
|