Document: 397 U.S. 790 90 S.Ct. 1474 25 L.Ed.2d 785 Charles Lee PARKER, Petitioner,v.State of NORTH CAROLINA. Robert M. BRADY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. Nos. 268, 270. Supreme Court the United States May 4, 1970 Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, N.C., for petitioner. Jacob L. Safron, Raleigh, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 At about 11 p.m. on July 16, 1964, petitioner was arrested after entering yard a home where burglary and rape had been committed four days earlier. Negro boy then 15 years old, taken to police station questioned one or two hours. After questioning, placed alone in dimly lit cell remainder night. Although refused give even his name during eventually determined identity notified petitioner's mother next day between 3:30 4:30 a.m. That morning, given drinking water by police; almost immediately confessed several earlier at house he arrested. Shortly thereafter, an attorney retained came talked with Petitioner told that confession not prompted threats promises frightened when made statement police. 2 indicted first-degree burglary, offense punishable death under North Carolina law.1 Petitioner's discussed nature seriousness charge. In due course, signed written statements authorizing entry plea guilty. Both petioner were aware time they authorization guilty that, if accepted, would receive mandatory sentence life imprisonment.2 The prosecutor trial judge accepted plea. accepting August 18, court asked response any promise threat answered negative; affirmed tendered 'freely without fear compulsion.'3 Upon acceptance plea, sentenced imprisonment. 3 1967, petitioner, assisted counsel, filed petition Post-Conviction Hearing Act4 obtain relief from conviction. petition, Parker urged product coerced indictment which pleaded invalid because members race systematically excluded grand jury returned indictment. hearing, Superior Halifax County found there no deliberate exclusion Negroes freely admitted guilt 'freely, voluntarily, threat, coercion duress * *.' Appeals Carolina, highest state could seek review,5 conviction reviewing only claims presented lower but also additional assertion involuntary statutes allowed defendant escape possibility penalty capital charge pleading N.C.App. 27, 162 S.E.2d 526 (1968). We granted certiorari, 395 974, 89 2136, 23 764 (1969), consider federal constitutional claims. For reasons below, we affirm. 4 have us hold therefore reasons: first, it induced statute providing maximum event than authorized verdict jury; and, second, shortly Neither reason is sufficient warrant setting aside Parker's 5 It may be Jackson, 390 570, 88 1209, 20 138 (1968), unconstitutional impose statutory framework existed plea.6 Even so, Brady States, 742, 1463, 747, otherwise valid defendant's desire limit possible less trial. this respect see nothing distinguish case Brady's. 6 Nor can accept claim infirm confession. According testimony post-conviction denied food water, promised unspecified help confessed, counsel's advice requested it. record, however, abundance evidence contradicting coercion: soon interrogation afraid, similar declarations sworn plea,7 answers accepted,8 failure complain mistreatment until many months began serving sentence. courts accordingly credit concluded free voluntary act. 7 reluctant question judgment respect; need evaluate voluntariness since should involuntary, cannot believe alleged conduct period such enduring effect as make entered over month later. hadd lack counsel remedied, ample opportunity significance promises. allegedly coercive interrogation, threats, misrepresentations, promises, other improper acts State. family before pleaded. connection, any, 'become so attenuated dissipate taint.' Nardone 308 338, 341, 60 266, 267—268, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939); Wong Sun 371 471, 491, 83 407, 419, 9 441 (1963). As far record reveals, act, own choice, just open court. II 8 On assumption inadmissible, remains whether voluntary, unintelligently mistakenly thought admissible. understand it, position necessarily implies decision plead rested strength against him: absent confession, chances acquittal good chosen stand trial; too strong advantage imprisonment.9 assumption, jury. But apparently deemed admissible followed client. now considers inadmissible. import suffered bad correctly counseled gone rather enter He suggests entitled again, suggestion reject. set out McMann Richardson, 759, 1441, 763, wrong assessment does follow error render unintelligent entitle disavow admission charged.10 Based facts relating previously detailed, think received well within range competence required attorneys representing defendants criminal cases. intelligent attack grounds misjudged admissibility III 10 law objection composition must raised motion quash prior plea.11 Because failed raise timely fashion, unavailable. This rule practice constitute adequate ground precluding our reaching issue here direct review. See Fay Noia, 372 391, 428—429, 822, 843—844, 837 are constraint review holding same requires denial collateral relief. Ibid. Whether racial selection habeas corpus action decide. Compare ex rel. Goldsby Harpole, 263 F.2d 71 (C.A.2th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 838 850, 80 58 109, 78 (1959), Labat Bennett, 365 698 (C.A.5th Cir. 1966), 386 991, 87 1303, 18 334 (1967). McNeil 368 313 (C.A.4th 1966). basis procedural Appeals' refusal 12 Affirmed. 13 BLACK, concurring. 14 I concur affirmance except part p. 1461 stating, 'It plea.' BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting No. concurring result 16 held operative punishment provisions Federal Kidnaping Act unconstitutionally 'to discourage Fifth Amendment right deter exercise Sixth demand trial.' U.S., 581, S.Ct., 1216. petitioners these cases victims very vices condemned Jackson. Yet paradoxically holds each allegations substantiated.1 Indeed, never, perhaps highly unrealistic hypothetical situations, will defects identified Jackson vitiate plea.2 holding, seriously undermines rational underpinnings departs broadly approach determination pleas confessions. merely manifestation design insulate all subsequent matter what influences them. acquiesce wholesale retreat sound principles adhered. 17 properly notes grave consequences attach guilty; constitutes simultaneous surrender numerous rights, including privilege compulsory self-incrimination jury, its attendant safeguards. McCarthy 394 459, 466, 1166, 1170, 22 418 (1969); Boykin Alabama, 238, 242—244, 1709, 1711—1713, 274 (1969). pointed more serious tantamount Kercheval 220, 223, 47 582, 583, 1009 (1927). Accordingly, insisted like fundamental reflect unfettered choice defendant. Botkin supra; Machibroda 487, 493, 182 510, 513, 473 (1962). deciding illicit pressures brought bear induce traditionally inquired 'voluntarily' 'intelligently' full understanding appreciation consequences. concept 'voluntariness' contains ambiguous element, accentuated Court's opinions cases, has employed analyze variety equally obvious their effect. some 'involuntary' found, physical psychological tactics exerted great influence upon accused accurately said literally overborne completely dominated interrogators, who rendered him incapable rationally weighing legal alternatives him.3 19 There intimation instant least pleas, 'involuntariness' covers narrow class overborne. points, recognizes term applied situations individual, while perfectly capable confronted factors government constitutionally inject into decision-making process. example, Garrity New Jersey, 385 616, 562 (1967), individual discharge employment invoked privilege. So, also, long certain leniency harsh treatment unfairly burden intrude though nonetheless invalid.4 Thus narrowly confined refers rights influenced considerations introduce. critical divides impermissible factor, or, context imposition factor.5 21 various meanings identified, application criteria particular circumstances elusory process entails judicial evaluation external stimuli mind accused. Haley Ohio, 332 596, 603, 68 302, 305, 92 224 (1948) (separate Frankfurter, J). Nevertheless, consistently pains oppressive forms coercion. Beyond this, analogous area confessions, recognized devices, subtle sophisticated nature, statements. Such Court.6 Thus, 'product sentient choice,' will. Id., 606, S.C., 307. recognizes, early 'not extracted sort violence, nor obtained implied however slight, exertion influence.' Bram 168 532, 542—543, 183, 187, 42 568 (1897). More recently, Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 1489, 653 (1964), Fourteenth Amendments guarantee every person remain silent unless chooses speak will, suffer silence.' 8, 1493. Cf. 616 answer stringent criterion imposed availability effectively offsets impose. Of presence factor account overall However, hardly follows support provided itself government. frequently held, risk judge's impartiality compromised inherently unequal bargaining power accused.7 assistance situation, improve ability, alter underlying inequality power. Significantly, explicitly refrains expressing views issue. (397 751, 1470 n. 8.) unfortunate omission, return provide useful analogy occurred Here, accused, through legislature, substantially reduced pleads fact, legislature simultaneously threatened ultimate penalty—death—if insists greater imprisonment guilty.8 24 precisely statutorily dilemma having 'inevitable effect' discouraging inconceivable scheme major impact decisions case, therefore, weight determining plea.9 To sure, 'the fact tends insisting innocence demanding enters involuntarily.'10 1217. emphasized entirely unrelated scheme, clear desired spare himself spectacle expense protracted courtroom proceedings.' 584, converse, clear: did is, uninfluenced character scheme. much teaching 26 elected deny latter aspect doing rationale decided. invalidated provision Act's whole encouraged waivers trial, involuntary. Today appears sharply 'encouraged' 'involuntarily.' never difficult why took extraordinary step invalidating Apparently view, despite encouragement. Rarely, ever, overturned Congress proves frivolous reason. Moreover, present covert rejection rationale, together leads striking anomaly. Since void, those resisted relief, succumbed left remedy all. Where produce effect, intended relief; succeeded, real none. puts premium invulnerability pressure cost rights. 27 actually exercised pernicious decided consideration motivated If demonstrate significant guilty, then, reversal based illicitly produced 28 attempts submerge general discussion arise from, inter alia, venerable institution bargaining. argument reduce this: insulated inducements shielded 29 principal flaw discourse bargaining, best, marginally relevant precise issues us. distinctions commonly practiced situation presently consideration—distinctions which, terms, difference. whatever merit, objections generally,11 30 dealing legislative markedly severe asserts concomitant different give-and-take negotiation common prosecution defense, arguably possess relatively equal power.12 No flexibility built government's terms stated unalterable form. 31 Furthermore, legislatively ordained affect defendant, wholly inappropriate uncertain.13 presents danger innocent, clearly insist innocence, nevertheless hazard necessitates particularly sensitive scrutiny type 32 schemes involved distinguishable most involve death—the awesome known law. treated differently respects noncapital See, e.g., Williams Georgia, 349 375, 75 814, 823, 99 1161 (1955). considerable deliberately waived Green 355 184, 221, 199 (1957), contended initially convicted second-degree murder charging double-jeopardy second first degree taking successful appeal. rejected argument, observing 33 'a faced 'choice' takes 'desperate chance' securing erroneous not, place incredible dilemma.' 193, 227. 34 (1963), argued redress appeal appellate thus Noting 'grisly choice' forgoing facing successful, review, penalty, interposed bar remedy.14 438—440, 848—850. 35 Finally, express defendants.15 deficiency might assert unfavorable context, involving mandated relieved rigid finality demonstrates consequence scheme.16 36 Turning contention (90 1460, nn. 2), deficient standards forth assumes arguendo indistinguishable Act, conclusion my inescapable. Under formerly existed, choices: thereby absolutely avoid guilty.17 anything, defect considered potential bench Therefore, 37 comes applicability former scheme.18 merits courts. would, reverse remand proceedings inconsistent elaborated herein.19 38 1959 Act. kidnaped liberated unharmed.' subject demanded trial.20 ultimately codefendant. Subsequently 50 years' exists substantial codefendant undermined defense. true impression following 39 A hearing pursuant Brady's U.S.C. § 2255 vacate sentence, Brady, codefendant, testified. completed District spoken matter. Judge constitutional. respect, erred. 'decided learned co-defendant going guilty' improperly anything him. further (Brady) matters (the Act).' 40 Tenth Circuit '(t)he finding supported binding us.' 404 601, 602. 41 An independent examination convinces me conclusions erroneous. played role Rather, evidence, credited, triggered penalty. dependent large measure assertions, rests largely credibility. indication, contemporaneous innocent execution. manifested sensitivity length concerning finally accepted. view foregoing. reached case. crime defined follows: 'There shall degrees dwelling house, room used sleeping apartment building, actual occupation commission crime, degree.' N.C.Gen.Stat. 14—51 (1969 Repl. vol.). recommends imprisonment: 'Any convicted, according course law, death: Provided, rendering recommend, State's prison, instruct jury.' 14—52 entered, '(a) Any person, charged bill felony degree, arson, rape, represented appointed *, may, arraignment, tender writing, crime; State, approval court, whatever. '(b) thereof recommendation prison; thereupon, pronounce imprisoned prison.' 15—162.1 (1965 vol.), repealed, effective March 25, 1969, N.C.Laws c. 117. Court: 'Has anybody you forced way plea?' Petitioner: 'No, sir.' 'Did sign compulsion?' 'Yes, do this?' App. 46. §§ 15—217 15—222 (Supp.1969). 7A—28 charges 1969. 2, supra. repeal, lesser face affidavit that: 'I abused manner charge.' 3, noted addition viewed 32, 526, 529 find raising doubts integrity admission. findings court: '(S)aid charged, Parker, cross finds rape. *' 'All exceptions jurors disqualifications petit impaneled try issue, indictment, waived. 9—23 State Rorie, 258 N.C. 162, 128 229 waive if, raises Covington, 501, 827 discussion, containing occasional references applicable for, Part opinion, pertinent distinction convicted. contours theory, developed principally unclear. states heavier trial' 'relevant circumstances' 749, 1469. Subsequently, discussing notion voluntariness, concludes penalty.' 755, 1472. Elsewhere 'there (is no) gripped hope weigh advantages guilty.' 750, 1470. deems totally precedent, individual's mental border temporary insanity 'involuntary.' Pennsylvania Herman Claudy, 350 116, 76 100 126 (1956); Chambers Florida, 309 227, 472, 716 (1940); Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 56 461, 682 (1936). 82 510 (1962); cited, 7, infra. latent ambiguity arises directly hence tainted With am disagreement fully 775, 1451, 776, day. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966); Haynes Washington, 373 503, 1336, 513 (1963); Rogers Richmond, 534, 81 735, 760 (1961); Spano York, 360 315, 79 1202, 1265 (1959); 302 (1948). Scott 135 U.S.App.D.C. 377, 419 264 McGrath LaVallee, 319 (C.A.2d 1963); Exuziere 249 293 (C.A.10th 1957); Elksnis Gilligan, 256 F.Supp. 244 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1966); Tateo, 214 560 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1963); Commonwealth Evans, 434 Pa. 52, 252 A.2d 689 generally Recent Developments, Judicial Plea Bargaining, Stan.L.Rev. 1082 alternative available contest Nothing appearing, arguable seeking Singer 380 24, 85 783, 630 (1965), Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. consent both prerequisite waiver indicated permit tried substance, Brady—jury plea—was Parker. confrontation statute. judge, else fails, preserve overreaching argues ought retroactively decision. sense, retroactivity problem chimerical, long-standing requirement altered apply standard new considering inducement mandate test. extent resolved, difficulty concluding concerns essence guilt-determining process, involuntarily induced, infect proceeding innocent.' Tehan Shott, 382 406, 416, 465, 453 (1966). Johnson 719, 727—729, 1772, 1777—1779, 882 Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 1731, 601 (1965). means obscure, say misleading, saying so. Laboy 266 581 (D.C.N.J.1967), cited seizes, example Surely relied establish guidelines quantum proof necessary involuntariness Jackson-defective statute, erroneously concluded, dicta, contained infirmity. D. Newman, Conviction, Determination Guilt Innocence Without Trial American Bar Association Project Standards Criminal Justice, Pleas Guilty 3.1—3.4 (Approved Draft 1968); President's Comm'n Law Enforcement & Administration Challenge Crime Free Society 134—137 (1967); Note, Unconstitutionality Harv.L.Rev. 1387 (1970); Bargaining: Compromises Prosecutors Secure Pleas, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 865 (1964). 78—104 Bailey MacDougall, 392 155, 158 393 847, 133, 118 (1968): 'Plea induces sanctioned. Negotiation limited admittedly defendant.' (Emphasis added.) perceptive commentator, interrelation scheme: incontrovertible (Federal Kidnaping) act security punishment, threatens sanction law—death. Can characterized infliction defendant? Is legitimate immunity mentioned offers sentencing concessions (in (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1966), (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1963))? officers order being discharged mortal executioner's chair (citing (1967))? put Lindbergh Law, 'between rock whirlpool' (385 498, 619), quite probably inherent Jackson: Possible Consequences Impairing Right Jury, Rutgers L.Rev. 167, 189—190 original.) malevolent intent ascribed invalidation exacted retroactive While denies affects validity surely pronounced carried out. position, described contain paradoxical element. death, presumably relaxation strict logic sympathetically prevent executions loss values preserved curious inversion about. comfort authorities cites proposition 792—793, 1472 14.) reliance misplaced. instance, antedate uninstructed appear defective unconstitutional. Secondly, take impermissibly pleas. Alford 405 340 1968), prob. juris. noted, 956, 1306, 558 reargument, 1060, 1494, 682; Quillien Leeke, 303 (D.C.S.C.1969); Wilson 1139 (D.C.W.D.Va.1969); Shaw 299 824 (D.C.S.D.Ga.1969); Breland South 253 S.C. 169 604 424 457 1970); Hargrove, 393, 254 Sophistic arguments substance mitigate goes, imprisonment, years, increase beyond impose, 'usurping province simple alone, discretion, instances complete insulation Spence, 536, 164 593 (1968); Peele, 106, 161 reach contentions, expressed

Category: 0