Adamson v. California

Appellant
Dewey Adamson
Appellee
The State of California
Appellant's Claim
That the state prosecutor who drew the jury's attention to Adamson's refusalto testify at his own murder trial violated the Fifth Amendment's ban on self-incrimination.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Morris Lavine
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Walter L. Bowers
Justices for the Court
Harold Burton, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed (writing for the Court), Wiley Blount Rutledge, Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, Frank Murphy
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 June 1947
Decision
Finding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not makeall aspects of the Bill of Rights applicable at the state level, the SupremeCourt declined to rule that the prosecutor had committed a crucial error andupheld Dewey's conviction.
Significance
Although the Court later overruled Adamson with Griffin v. California (1965), in which it held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not permitprosecutors to call attention to defendants' failure to testify, in Adamson the Court declined--as it continues to decline--to endorse the notionthat all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
After Admiral Dewey Adamson, a career criminal apparently named after the naval hero, was convicted of murder in the first degree in California Superior Court and sentenced to death, he sought a review of his trial from the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, the appellant challenged provisions of the stateconstitution and penal code that permitted a state prosecutor to draw a jury's attention to a defendant's failure to deny or explain the evidence presented against him in court. Adamson had not wanted to take the witness stand in his own defense because to do so would subject him to cross-examination abouthis former crimes that would undermine his credibility and, in all probability, contribute to his conviction. Through his attorney, Adamson argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Fifth Amendment prohibition on such compelled self-incrimination applicable at the state level.
At the time, a debate was raging in the American judicial system about the so-called "incorporation doctrine," that is, the incorporation of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Fourteenth Amendment extends the concept of due process to the states, the incorporation doctrine was especially significant for criminal defendants, who are customarilytried in state courts. At the time Adamson came before the Court, thejustices had adopted, in Palko v. Connecticut (1937), only a philosophy of selective incorporation, whereby only those Bill of Rights guarantees "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" were binding on the states. Citing this precedent, the Court reasoned that because the prosecutor's actions had not resulted in an unfair trial, Adamson's conviction should stand.
Justice Black Argues for Total Incorporation
The Adamson court divided 5-4. Both Justices Murphy and Black wrote dissenting opinions. Black, who was emerging as the leader of the "due processrevolution" that would eventually see most of the Bill of Rights incorporatedinto the Fourteenth Amendment, argued powerfully for a "total incorporation"approach to due process:

The first 10 amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties. The people wanted and demanded a Bill of Rights written into their Constitution. The amendments embodying the Bill of Rights were intended to curb all branches of the Federal Government in the fieldstouched by the amendments-- Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Fifth,Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are pointedly aimed at confining exercise of power by courts and judges within precise boundaries, particularly in the procedure used for the trial of criminal cases . . . My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment . . . persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment's first section, separately, and as a whole, were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill ofRights, applicable to the states.

Justice Black would always remain a constitutional fundamentalist, but towards the end of his tenure on the Supreme Court, convinced that the Courts headed by Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger had gone too far in their judicial activism, he grew more conservative. Black's early commitment to the due process revolution, however, led to significant changes in the administration of criminal justice, such as the administration of the Miranda warning to individuals arrested to inform them of their right to remain silent and their right to be represented by an attorney, and the exclusionary rule, which prevents improperly obtained evidence from being introduced at a trial.
Related Cases

• Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
  
• Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965).

Due Process of Law
Dating back to the Magna Carta (1215), due process of law was part of England's first written code of law. Later the authors of the U.S. Constitution included the notion of due process in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to limit the power of the federal government and the state governments, respectively. Legal scholars interpreted the Due Process Clause of these amendments to cover procedure or process in court and to refer to a basic right of "all persons within the territory of the United States that protects them from unfair treatment from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government," according to Justice Curtis in 1855.
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause to guarantee fair trials, non-arbitrary action, reasonable bail and fines, and adequate compensation for property seized by the federal and state governments. The Supreme Court also has ruled that the Due Process Clause requires the accused to receive advanced notice of legal proceedings and that they have an opportunityto defend themselves before any branch of the government restricts their liberty or seizes their property.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing,1998.