Document: 441 U.S. 369 99 S.Ct. 1755 60 L.Ed.2d 286 State of NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner,v.Willie Thomas BUTLER. No. 78-354. Argued March 27, 1979. Decided April 24, Syllabus Respondent, while under arrest for certain crimes and after being advised his rights Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, made incriminating statements to the arresting officers. His motion suppress evidence these on ground that he had not waived right assistance counsel at time were was denied by a North Carolina trial court, subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding requires no statement person custodial interrogation may be admitted in against him unless, made, explicitly presence lawyer. Held: An explicit waiver is invariably necessary support finding defendant guaranteed case. question must determined particular facts circumstances surrounding case, there reason case such as this per se rule, Court. By creating an inflexible rule implicit can ever suffice, court has gone beyond requirements federal organic law, thus its judgment cannot stand, since state neither add nor subtract from mandates United States Constitution. Pp. 372-376. 295 N.C. 250, 244 S.E.2d 410, vacated remanded. Lester V. Chalmers, Jr., Raleigh, N.C., petitioner. R. Gene Braswell, Goldsboro, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 In evident conflict with present view every other considered issue, held We granted certiorari consider whether reflects proper understanding decision. 439 1046, 720, 58 704. 2 respondent convicted kidnaping, armed robbery, felonious assault. showed man named Elmer Lee robbed gas station N. C., December 1976, shot attendant attempting escape. paralyzed, but survived testify 3 prosecution also produced shortly Federal Bureau Investigation agents Bronx, Y., basis fugitive warrant. Outside jury, FBI Agent Martinez testified fully delineated According uncontroverted testimony Martinez, then took office nearby New Rochelle, Y. There, 11th grade education literate, given Bureau's "Advice Rights" form which read.1 When asked if understood rights, replied did. refused sign bottom form. He told need speak form, would like talk them. replied: "I will you I am signing any form." inculpatory statements.2 said nothing when At did request or attempt terminate agents' questioning. 4 conclusion moved made. motion, 5 "the defendant, William Butler, David C. freely voluntarily agent having been required ruling, including attorney inquiry rights; [and] effectively have during questioning indication willing answer questions, read together Waiver Rights . ." App. A-22 A-23. 6 respondent's into evidence, jury ultimately found guilty each offense charged. 7 On appeal, reversed convictions ordered new trial. It violation decision, noting waive writing specific oral waiver. As it least two earlier cases, 8 "provid[ing] plain language recognized unless 'specifically made' warnings given." 255, 413 (1978). 9 See Blackmon, 280 42, 49-50, 185 123, 127-128 (1971); Thacker, 281 447, 453-454, 189 145, 149-150 (1972).3 10 conclude erred reading opinion. said: 11 "If continues without taken, heavy burden rests government demonstrate knowingly intelligently privilege self-incrimination retained appointed counsel." U.S., 475, S.Ct., 1628. Court's went say: 12 "An express individual make does want followed closely could constitute But valid presumed simply silence accused are fact confession eventually obtained." Ibid. 13 Thus, waiver, alone do so. hold indispensable 14 written remain silent usually strong proof validity inevitably either sufficient establish one rather unequivocally Miranda, mere enough. That mean defendant's silence, coupled course conduct indicating never rights. courts presume prosecution's great; some cases clearly inferred actions words interrogated.4 15 explained reasons prophylactic rules created: "We concluded safeguards process in-custody persons suspected crime contains inherently compelling pressures work undermine individual's resist compel where otherwise so freely. order combat permit full opportunity exercise self-incrimination, adequately apprised those honored." Id., 467, 1624. 17 concerns. There doubt only Neither offered why negative absence This first criminal constitutional issue repeatedly deal. Even fundamental involved, background, experience, accused." Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461. Washington, 431 181, 188, 97 1814, 1819, 52 238; Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 93 2041, 36 854; Frazier Cupp, 394 731, 739, 89 1420, 1424, 22 684. 18 see discard standard replace this. stated outset opinion, appears now reached same conclusion. Ten eleven Courts Appeals5 States6 law. follows Oregon Hass, 420 714, 95 1215, 43 570.7 19 Accordingly, vacated, remanded further proceedings inconsistent 20 ordered. 21 POWELL part consideration decision BLACKMUN, concurring. 23 join My joinder, however, assumption citation 1461 (1938), ante, 374-375, meant suggest "intentional relinquishment abandonment known right" formula—the formula Zerbst articulated determining vel non "of rights," 1023—has relevance "right lawyer," 374, § rule. 24 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL STEVENS joins, dissenting. 25 470, 1625, 694 (1966), "[n]o effective specifically we here delineate (Emphasis added.) Support Carnley Cochran, 506, 516, 884, 890, 70 (1962), allegation "affirmative disputed requiring hearing." 26 affirmative concedes, "said lawyer." Ante, 371. "disputed hearing," one. waiver" statement, correctly would, therefore, affirm 27 announced today allows based upon "infer[ence] interrogated." 373. shrouds half-light allowing construct inferences ambiguous gestures. very premise ambiguity interpreted interrogator. recognition "compulsion inherent custodial" interrogation, purpose "to subjugate [his] examiner," id., 457, 1619. Under conditions, most waivers given. 28 instant presents clear example requirement. acknowledges, disagreement over orally statement.* Butler received copy deemed resolve disagreement. But, unfortunately, dispute read. Tr. Oral Arg. 22, 23. And, obviously, him, them himself, Indeed, even believe statements, refusal intended signify 29 Faced "actions words" uncertain meaning, judges find none occurred. Others fail they former violated; latter, society's interest law enforcement frustrated. A simple police obtain before proceeding eliminates difficulties. And agrees kind waiver—whether implied—the requirement impose imposed interpretation. merely explicit. Had elicited Willie question, "Do your lawyer?" journey through three necessary. parties disagree Rochelle office. scene arrest, factual controversy, relevant basic dissenting points out, post, 378, argument literate. "it Eleventh Grade Education write 21. finding, binding drinking heavily day robbery. acknowledged decided rob station, actually participated friend, said, attendant. Siler, 292 543, 550, 234 733, 738 (1977). adhered interpretation expressed might subsequent comments revealed Although Siler cited portion discussed. remotely 70, approved Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799, Fourteenth Amendment. Florida because record requested counsel. allow presumption record. "The show, understandingly rejected offer." 890. consistent our today, intelligent rejection situations expressly much. Speaks, 453 F.2d 966 (CA1 1972); Boston, 508 1171 (CA2 1974); Stuckey, 1104 (CA3 1971); Blackmon Blackledge, 541 1070 (CA4 1976); Hayes, 385 375 1967); Cavallino, 498 1200 (CA5 Montos, 421 215 1970); Ganter, 436 364 (CA7 Marchildon, 519 337 (CA8 1975); Hughes Swenson, 452 866 Moreno-Lopez, 466 1205 (CA9 Hilliker, 101 Bond States, 397 162 (CA10 1968) (but Sullins 389 985 1968)); Cooper, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 499 1060 (1974). supra, Appeals Fourth Circuit valid. unanimously similar precludes supra; Thompson, 417 196 1969); Guzman-Guzman, 488 965 Caulton, (CA6 Crisp, 435 354 Zamarripa, 544 978 supra. Sullivan State, 351 So.2d 659 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 665 (Ala.1977); Pineda, 110 Ariz. 342, P.2d 41 (1974); ex rel. Berger Superior Court, 109 513 935 (1973); People Johnson, Cal.2d 541, 75 Cal.Rptr. 401, 450 865 (1969) (reversing lower grounds); Weaver, 179 Colo. 331, 500 980 (1972); Reed People, 171 421, 467 809 (1970); Craig, 237 737 (Fla.1970); Peek 239 Ga. 422, 238 (1977); Brooks, 51 Ill.2d 156, N.E.2d 326 Wilson, Kan. 28, 523 Hazelton, 330 A.2d 919 (Me.1975); Miller 251 Md. 362, 247 530 (1968); Commonwealth Murray, 359 Mass. 269 641 Alewine, 474 S.W.2d 848 (Mo.1971); Burnside 473 697 Shirey 520 701 (Okl.Cr.App.1974); Davidson, 252 Or. 617, 451 481 (1969); Garnett, 458 Pa. 4, 335 Bowling Tenn.Cr.App. 176, 639 Young, Wash.2d 613, 574 Aaron 275 791 (Del.1971); Nelson, Minn., 257 N.W.2d 356 Land Commonwealth, 211 Va. 223, 176 586 (1970) grounds). token accept whatever construction constitution placed highest State. * states "not case." 371 n. 1. Bronx applied conducted Rochelle. particularly latter "would talk." 253, argue recitation sufficient, cites addition Butler's receipt However, read, ones mattered, becomes highly interrogated.

Category: 0