explaining that “a State is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards. . . . But, of course, a State may not impose such greater restrictions as a matter of federal constitutional law when this Court specifically refrains from imposing them.”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “a State is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards. . . . But, of course, a State may not impose such greater restrictions as a matter of federal constitutional law when this Court specifically refrains from imposing them.”
- stating that while "a State is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards," it "may not impose such greater restrictions as a matter of federal constitutional law when this Court specifically refrains from imposing them"
- explaining that voluntary 10 UNITED STATES v. NICHOLS statements to be used for impeachment "would provide valuable aid to the jury in assessing the defendant’s credibility" and that "there is sufficient deterrence when the evidence in question is made unavail- able to the prosecution in its case in chief"
- explaining that voluntary statements to be used for impeachment “would provide valuable aid to the jury in assessing the defendant’s credibility” and that “there is sufficient deterrence when the evidence in question is made unavailable to the prosecution in its case in chief’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Marshall,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins,
dissenting.
While I agree with my Brother Brennan that on the merits the judgment of the Oregon Supreme Court was correct, I think it appropriate to add a word about this Court’s increasingly common practice of reviewing state-court decisions upholding constitutional claims in criminal cases. See Michigan v. Mosley, 51 Mich. App. 105 , 214 N. W. 2d 564 (1974), cert. granted, 419 U. S. 1119 (1975); Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S. 47 (1973); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972); California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424 (1971); California v. Green, 399 U. S. 149 (1970).
In my view, we have too often rushed to correct state courts in their view of federal constitutional questions without sufficiently considering the risk that we will be drawn into rendering a purely advisory opinion. Plainly, if the Oregon Supreme Court had expressly decided that Hass’ statement was inadmissible as a matter of state as well as federal law, this Court could not upset that judgment. See Jankovich v. Indiana Toll Road Comm’n, 379 U. S. 487 (1965); Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940); Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207 (1935). The sound policy behind this rule was well articulated by Mr. Justice Jackson in Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945):
“This Court from the time of its foundation has adhered to the principle that it will not review judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds. The reason is so obvious that it has rarely been thought to warrant statement. *727 It is found in the partitioning of power between the state and federal judicial systems and in the limitations of our own jurisdiction. Our only power over state judgments is to correct them to the extent that they incorrectly adjudge federal rights. And our power is to correct wrong judgments, not to revise opinions. We are not permitted to render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.’' Id., at 125-126 (citations omitted).
Where we have been unable to say with certainty that the judgment rested solely on federal law grounds, we have refused to rule on the federal issue in the case; the proper course is then either to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted or to remand the case to the state court to clarify the basis of its decision. California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972); Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194 (1965). Of course, it may often be unclear whether a state court has relied in part on state law in reaching its decision. As the Court said in Herb v. Pitcairn, supra, however, where the answer does not appear “of record” and is not “clear and decisive,”
“it seems consistent with the respect due the highest courts of states of the Union that they be asked rather than told what they have intended. If this imposes an unwelcome burden it should be mitigated by the knowledge that it is to protect their jurisdiction from unwitting interference as well as to protect our own from unwitting renunciation.” 324 U. S., at 128 .
From a perusal of the Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion it is evident that these exacting standards were not met in this case. The Constitution of Oregon contains an *728 independent prohibition against compulsory self-incrimination, and there is a distinct possibility that the state court intended to express its view of state as well as federal constitutional law. The majority flatly states that the case was decided below solely on federal constitutional grounds, but I am not so certain. Although the state court did not expressly cite state law in support of its judgment, its opinion suggests that it may well have considered the matter one of state as well as federal law. The court stated that it had initially viewed the issue of the case as whether it should overrule one of its prior precedents in light of this Court's opinion in Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). It concluded that it was not required to consider whether to overrule the earlier state case, however, since upon examination it determined that Harris did not reach this fact situation. In view of the court’s suggestion that the federal constitutional rule in Harris would be regarded as merely a persuasive authority even if it were deemed to be squarely in conflict with the state rule, it seems quite possible that the state court intended its decision to rest at least in part on independent state grounds. In any event, I agree with Mr. Justice Jackson that state courts should be “asked rather than told what they have intended.”
In addition to the importance of avoiding jurisdictional difficulties, it seems much the better policy to permit the state court the freedom to strike its own balance between individual rights and police practices, at least where the state court’s ruling violates no constitutional prohibitions. It is peculiarly within the competence of the highest court of a State to determine that in its jurisdiction the police should be subject to more stringent rules than are required as a federal constitutional minimum.
The Oregon court’s decision in this case was not premised on a reluctant adherence to what it deemed federal *729 law to require, but was based on its independent conclusion that admitting evidence such as that held admissible today will encourage police misconduct in violation of the right against compulsory self-incrimination. This is precisely the setting in which it seems most likely that the state court would apply the State’s self-incrimination clause to lessen what it perceives as an intolerable risk of abuse. Accordingly, in my view the Court should not review a state-court decision reversing a conviction unless it is quite clear that the state court has resolved all applicable state-law questions adversely to the defendant and that it feels compelled by its view of the federal constitutional issue to reverse the conviction at hand.
Even if the majority is correct that the Oregon Supreme Court did not intend to express a view of state as well as federal law, this Court should, at the very least, remand the case for such further proceedings as the state court deems appropriate. I can see absolutely no reason for departing from the usual course of remanding the case to permit the state court to consider any other claims, including the possible applicability of state law to the issue treated here. See Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S., at 57 ; California v. Byers, 402 U. S., at 434 ; California v. Green, 399 U. S., at 168-170 ; C. Wright, Federal Courts 488 (2d ed. 1970); cf. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Decatur, 297 U. S. 620, 623 (1936). Surely the majority does not mean to suggest that the Oregon Supreme Court is foreclosed from considering the respondent’s state-law claims or even ruling sua sponte that the statement in question is not admissible as a matter of state law. If so, then I should think this unprecedented assumption of authority will be as much a surprise to the Supreme Court of Oregon as it is to me.
I dissent.