Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1934

Snyder v. Massachusetts

291 U.S. 97 | 54 S. Ct. 330 | 78 L. Ed. 674 | 1934 U.S. LEXIS 493 | 90 A.L.R. 575

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case held that due process does not require a defendant's presence at every event connected with a criminal prosecution; it requires presence only when absence would substantially impair a fair opportunity to defend.

Background

James M. Kiley was killed during an attempted robbery at a Somerville, Massachusetts, gasoline station. Garrick, Donnellon, and Snyder participated in the crime; Garrick confessed and testified for the Commonwealth. Donnellon and Snyder were tried together, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death.

At the prosecution's request, the trial judge ordered the jury to view the crime scene under a Massachusetts statute. Snyder asked to accompany the jury, asserting a federal constitutional right to be present. The judge denied the request but allowed Snyder's counsel to attend, along with Donnellon's counsel, the judge, a stenographer, and the prosecutor. At the scene, counsel pointed out physical features for the jurors to observe, and the judge stated an agreed fact that a third gasoline pump had not existed at the time of the homicide.

The judge later instructed the jury that the view, testimony, and exhibits together constituted the evidence. Snyder argued that his exclusion from the view denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed his conviction, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause required Massachusetts to permit Snyder to attend the jury's view of the crime scene after he requested to be present.

Holding

No. Due process requires a defendant's presence only when it bears a reasonably substantial relation to the opportunity to defend; Snyder's exclusion from this particular view did not deny him a fair and just hearing.

Reasoning

The Court began with the limited nature of Fourteenth Amendment due process as then understood. States may structure their own criminal procedures unless they violate a principle of justice so rooted in the nation's traditions and conscience as to be fundamental. Due process unquestionably requires notice of the charge and an adequate opportunity to defend, but it does not constitutionalize every procedure that might be fairer, wiser, or more protective of an accused person.

The Court assumed that, in a felony prosecution, due process protects a defendant's personal presence whenever it has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of the defense. This principle can cover stages such as witness examination, jury selection, or argument, where an accused may confront witnesses, advise counsel, or personally participate. But presence is not constitutionally required when it would be useless or would provide only a shadowy benefit.

A bare view of a crime scene does not ordinarily require the defendant's presence. The accused cannot examine the physical scene in the way he can cross-examine a witness, and any concern that jurors viewed the wrong location or that conditions had materially changed can be explored through testimony, photographs, diagrams, or a later inspection with counsel. Snyder had an opportunity to visit the scene afterward and did not identify any discrepancy between the scene viewed and the photographs and diagrams admitted at trial.

The limited statements made at the view did not alter the constitutional result. Massachusetts allowed counsel to point out physical features but not to offer evidence, comment, or argument. The Court treated this as a difference of degree from a silent inspection, consistent with a longstanding historical practice in which persons guiding a jury could identify marks, boundaries, and relevant objects without discussing the merits of the case.

History also supported treating a view as distinct from a trial in court for this purpose. At common law, a judge need not attend a view, and historically even fewer than all jurors could attend one. Those practices showed that a view was not understood as the kind of adversarial courtroom proceeding at which the accused's presence was inherently indispensable. Labels such as 'evidence' or 'trial' could not resolve the constitutional question; the relevant inquiry was whether exclusion, in the circumstances of this record, was flagrantly unfair.

No reasonable possibility of prejudice appeared here. Snyder admitted being at the station during the crime, used the trial diagram to describe the participants' movements, and never claimed that the jury saw an inaccurate or materially altered scene. His counsel attended the view and directed the jurors' attention to defense-favorable features, including the ability to see into the station from outside. In light of the complete record, Snyder's own attendance would not have aided his defense.

Issue #2

Whether the judge's statement during the view that a third gasoline pump was not present at the time of the homicide required reversal.

Holding

No. Although the statement exceeded the proper bounds of merely pointing out features of the scene, it caused no substantial harm and was later effectively confirmed by the parties.

Reasoning

The Court criticized the judge's statement about the missing middle pump because it went beyond neutral explanation of what the jurors should observe. Still, Snyder neither objected on that ground nor showed that the pump's presence or absence had any bearing on the verdict. A procedural irregularity of this kind does not require setting aside a conviction without substantial prejudice.

After the jury returned to court, the prosecutor offered a diagram and again stated that the third pump had not been present at the time of the crime. Snyder and his counsel acquiesced. That later confirmation renewed the agreement in Snyder's presence, eliminating any claim that the earlier statement at the view injured him.

Dissents

Justice Roberts

Reasoning

Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Brandeis, Sutherland, and Butler, viewed the jury's visit as an evidentiary stage of the trial, not as a separate and constitutionally insignificant inspection. Under Massachusetts law and the trial judge's express instructions, what the jury saw at the station was evidence to be weighed with the testimony and exhibits. The station's dimensions, windows, doors, surrounding objects, and lines of sight bore directly on conflicting accounts of who fired the fatal shot and whether Snyder had withdrawn from the criminal enterprise.

In the dissent's view, the right to be present protects far more than cross-examination. It ensures that a person whose liberty or life is at stake can see, hear, and know all material presented to the tribunal deciding guilt. That principle applies to physical objects and demonstrative evidence as well as live witnesses; otherwise, the State could exclude an accused whenever the jury examined documents, maps, photographs, weapons, clothing, or other potentially persuasive evidence.

The historical and widespread recognition of an accused person's right to attend every material stage of a felony trial demonstrated, for the dissent, that the right was fundamental and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Most courts treated a requested jury view as part of the trial precisely because jurors necessarily acquire factual information from the scene and may use that information in reaching a verdict.

The dissent rejected the majority's harmlessness approach. Once the proceeding is properly understood as an evidentiary part of the trial, excluding a defendant who has demanded to attend denies the right itself. Due process guarantees not merely a correct result, but a result reached through fundamentally fair procedures. Because Snyder was excluded from a critical evidentiary proceeding despite his request to attend, Justice Roberts would have reversed the conviction.