Davis v. Alaska

Joshaway Davis was charged with burglary of a bar and theft of a safe containing more than $1,000, Green a witness for the prosecution, testified that he had seen Davis, holding a crowbar, and another man standing by Davis's car near the site where the pried-open, empty safe was later found (which was the property of Green's stepfather). There was other evidence that pointed to Davis as the thief--paint chips and insulation matching that of the stolen safe were found in his car--but Green's testimony was important as direct, eyewitness evidence linking Davis to the place where the safe was discovered shortly after the crime.

Green, a minor, was himself on probation at the time for the burglary of two cabins. Before the trial of Davis for grand larceny and burglary, the prosecutor asked for and obtained a protective order prohibiting any reference during cross-examination to Green's status as a juvenile offender under an Alaska state law protecting the identities of minors charged with crimes, despite the opposition of Davis's counsel.

Davis's counsel wanted to discredit Green's testimony by showing that as a probationer he was subject to police pressure to testify in the manner they desired. At trial, although prohibited from bringing up Green's status as a juvenile offender, he questioned Green regarding his state of mind: was he "upset" when he heard about the discovery of the safe near his home? Did he feel "uncomfortable" about it? Did he "suspect for a moment that the police might somehow think that [he] was involved in this"? After eliciting from Green the fact that Green had been driven to the police station and that he had been questioned by two investigators, Davis's counsel asked, "Had you been questioned like that before by any law enforcement officers?" to which Green replied, "No." At this point the prosecution objected, and the judge sustained the objection, cutting off further inquiry in that direction.

Davis was convicted of burglary and grand larceny, and he appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court on grounds that the limits on his cross-examination of Green violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, the crux of which is the right to cross-examine them and, if desired, to impeach their credibility. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court, stating that "counsel for the defendant was able adequately to question [Green] in considerable detail concerning the possibility of bias or motive." Because of this the "jury . . . was afforded the opportunity to pass on [Green's] credibility"; thus there was no need to rule on any possible conflict of the state's protection of Green as a minor and Davis's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.

The requisite number of justices did see the necessity of adjudicating a conflict of rights in this instance, however, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a 7-2 decision the Court reversed Davis's conviction, ruling that the state of Alaska had prevented him from effective cross-examination of Green in violation the Sixth Amendment.