Dutton v. Evans (1969)
- Docket
- 10
- Decided
- 1969-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Did admitting the prison inmate’s statement under the Georgia hearsay exception violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause? Conclusion: No. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a four justice plurality, delivered the judgment of the court. The Supreme Court held that the Georgia hearsay exception did not violate the confrontation clause merely because it was slightly different from the federal rule. The accomplice’s statement was not crucial in light of the other evidence, and Evans’ counsel had full opportunity to cross-examine all of the prosecution’s witnesses. Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred, adding that admission of the accomplice’s statement was a harmless error if it was an error at all. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the result, writing that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the proper standard for reviewing rules of evidence, not the Confrontation Clause. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, arguing that admitting the accomplice’s statement denied Evans his right to cross-examine all witnesses against him. Even if the statement fell within a genuine hearsay exception, it should not be introduced unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Justices Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, and William J. Brennan joined in the dissent.