Herring v. New York

1975-06-30

Headline: Court invalidates New York law letting judges deny defense closing arguments in bench trials, vacates the conviction, and requires judges to allow defendants a chance to make final summations.

Holding: The Court held that a state statute allowing judges in nonjury criminal trials to deny any defense closing argument violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, vacating the conviction.

Real World Impact:

Stops states from allowing total denial of defense closing arguments in bench trials.
Requires judges to permit a defendant’s counsel to deliver a final summation.
Leaves judges discretion to limit time and scope but not to refuse summations entirely.

Topics: defense rights, closing arguments, bench trials, right to counsel

Summary

Background

The case involves a man tried in New York state court on attempted robbery and a related weapons charge. He waived a jury. After the prosecution and a weekend break, the defense presented witnesses and the defendant testified. A New York statute (N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 320.20(3)(c)) allows a judge in a nonjury trial to decide whether parties may deliver summations. After a motion to dismiss was denied, the defense asked to be heard. The trial judge said summation was discretionary and chose not to hear it, then found the defendant guilty and sentenced him. State courts affirmed and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the statute that allows absolute refusal of closing argument violates the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority explained that closing argument is a basic part of the adversary factfinding process. Judges may limit time and scope, but a rule permitting total denial of any final summation removes a key tool for counsel to challenge credibility and point out inconsistencies. Relying on historical practice and prior cases, the Court held a complete denial of defense summation in a bench trial infringes the constitutional right to counsel, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision prevents states from empowering judges to bar defense closing arguments entirely in nonjury criminal trials. Trial judges still control length and scope, but cannot refuse any summation. The case was vacated and sent back for proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the issue should be handled case-by-case under the Fourteenth Amendment’s fairness standard. The dissent contended the judge here fairly tried the case and that a prophylactic rule was unnecessary.