Green v. United States

Background

The case involves Theodore Green, convicted in 1952 of bank robbery and an aggravated robbery count that alleged use of a dangerous weapon. After trial the judge asked, “Did you want to say something?” and defense counsel spoke for leniency. The judge then imposed concurrent prison terms (20, 20, and 25 years) to begin after a state sentence. Years later Green sought relief under Rule 35, arguing the judge never personally invited him to speak as required by Rule 32(a) and that imposing sentences on both counts was improper.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed the history of the old common-law right of allocution and Rule 32(a), which gives a defendant both the chance to speak for himself and to present mitigation. The majority found the record ambiguous but concluded it did not show the defendant was denied a personal opportunity to speak. The Court also accepted that the third count was an aggravation of the second, and held that the judge’s clear intention to impose the maximum aggravated sentence should not be undone by a formal procedural slip. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgments below.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves Green’s sentences in place and denies the relief he sought. It signals that defendants face a high burden when the transcript is ambiguous about whether they personally were invited to speak. The Court urged trial judges to avoid doubt by clearly addressing defendants before sentencing.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence urged that requiring an express opportunity to speak is good practice prospectively. A dissent argued Rule 32(a) was violated and would have ordered resentencing after a clear personal invitation.