Cottier v. United States

140 S. Ct. 354, 205 L. Ed. 2d 409
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 9, 2019
Docket18-9261
StatusRelating-to
Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 S. Ct. 354 (Cottier v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cottier v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 354, 205 L. Ed. 2d 409 (U.S. 2019).

Opinion

Statement of Justice SOTOMAYOR respecting the denial of certiorari.

For his alleged role in a group beating, petitioner Calmer Cottier was charged with, among other things, second-degree murder by an Indian in Indian country. Two other participants accepted plea deals with the Government; as part of their pleas, the participants signed statements-known as factual-basis statements-that implicated Cottier in the murder. A federal prosecutor also signed those inculpatory statements to vouch for their veracity. Then, that same prosecutor offered those same incriminating statements as evidence at Cottier's trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit observed that the court in which Cottier was prosecuted "routinely" sends unredacted factual-basis statements into the jury room. 908 F.3d 1141 , 1149 (2018). I agree with the Eighth Circuit that this practice is "troubling." Ibid. By presenting the jury with a factual-basis statement signed by the Government, the prosecution improperly expresses its " 'personal belief ' " in the truth of the witness' statements-a stamp of approval, an assurance from the Government itself, that the witness is to be believed. United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 7-8, 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). In this case, however, Cottier's attorney did not object to the statements' admission and used them as part of Cottier's defense. For that reason and others expressed by the Eighth Circuit in affirming Cottier's convictions, I do not dissent from the denial of certiorari but instead echo its admonition that the admission of such statements "is not a favored practice." 908 F.3d, at 1149 .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cottier v. United States
D. South Dakota, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 S. Ct. 354, 205 L. Ed. 2d 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottier-v-united-states-scotus-2019.