Document: 355 U.S. 155 78 S.Ct. 191 2 L.Ed.2d 167 Willie B. MOORE, Petitioner,v.STATE OF MICHIGAN. No. 42. Argued Oct. 15, 16, 1957. Decided Dec. 9, Mr. William H. Culver, Kalamazoo, Mich., for petitioner. Samuel J. Torina, Lansing, respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On October 29, 1938, Circuit Court Kalamazoo County, Michigan, accepted petitioner's plea guilty to an information charging him with murder elderly white lady. He was sentenced solitary confinement at hard labor life in Michigan's Jackson Prison, where he has since been confined.1 Petitioner, a Negro seventh-grade education, 17 years old time. May 26, 1950, filed delayed motion new trial asserted constitutional invalidity his conviction and sentence because did not have assistance counsel time sentence. The Court, after hearing, denied motion, Supreme Michigan affirmed.2 We granted certiorari decide important question raised involving charge accused without benefit counsel.3 petitioner arrested during afternoon few hours committed. confined jail questioned by local law authorities from until 28, when orally confessed crime.4 Saturday morning, arraigned pleaded guilty, adjudged first degree, and, sentence, transferred Prison. 3 In accordance then prevailing procedure no stenographic transcript taken proceedings arraignment plea. However, hearing held on trial, two witnesses, who were present courtroom testified as what transpired. basis their testimony denying found fact—which finding is, course, us—that before tendered judge asked 'whether had lawyer whether desired lawyer, that (the petitioner) gave negative reply both these inquiries, stated wanted get matter over with.' 4 record further discloses judge, acting conformity procedure, which required conduct investigation into voluntariness any guilty,5 conferred privately 'some five ten minutes' chambers. Upon return courtroom, would be proceeded law6 determine degree offense murder. At this several witnesses details crime. took part examination nor testify. conclusion testimony, pronounced judgment imposed 5 made statement, stenographically transcribed, that, previous three years, 'been trouble four or times, consisting breaking entering unlawful taking automobiles' handled juvenile offender such occasions. also 'discussed whole affair murder) very freely me all its revolting details' 'in my private interview respondent, I assured must plead unless really is guilty; could jury if it. voluntarily one desire it over, institution committed, under observation examined * *.' point recited crime told stated: 'Such story private, calmly; compulsion whatever. insists there something wrong head; akin queer sensations this.' 6 may reasonably infer neither courts considered thought plight satisfy requisites fair secured Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment state prosecution. principles determining extent right prosecution discussed long series decisions Court.7 hold case falls within class intervention counsel, intelligently waived accused, essential element hearing. 7 age education. Cf. DeMeerleer v. People State 329 663, 67 596, 91 L.Ed. 584; Wade Mayo, 334 672, 68 1270, 92 1647; Williams Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 146 F.2d 867. charged carrying maximum penalty, viz., possibility parole. Mich.Stat.Ann.1954, §§ 28.548, 28.2304, Comp.Laws 1948, § 750.316, Supp.1956, 791.234. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 158. shows possible defenses might but availability questions considerable technical difficulty obviously beyond capacity comprehend. For instance, defense insanity, suggested judge's statements 'his *'; 'he Another mistaken identity, fact evidence pointing perpetrator entirely circumstantial. Com. Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman Claudy, 350 116, 76 223, 100 126; Rice Olson, 324 786, 65 989, 89 1367. Moreover, murder, outcome determined punishment, introduced own complexities. With aid petitioner, who, we said, himself proceeding cross-examined prosecution's done much establish lesser substantive crime, facts make arguments mitigated representation merits. Reece Georgia, 85, 167, 77. circumstances compel rights fairly protected help defense. 8 even constitutionally entitled didn't want one, right, does justify forcing upon wants none. See Carter Illinois, 173, 174, 216, 218, 172. But, 'where person convicted court understandingly show invalidates 118, 224, 126. Where critical importance Amendment, waiver lightly made. Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461; Glasser United States, 315 60, 70, 62 457, 86 680; Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 723, 316, 323, 309. 9 This supra, entered federal collaterally attacked ground defendant burden showing, preponderance evidence, competently waive counsel. secure guaranteed Amendment. Whatever differences cases, established should carry same proving nonwaiver case. therefore rule Zerbst applies 10 Notwithstanding express disavowal, plea, developed sustained showing disavowal hence waiver. crucial apparently known brought out cross-examination Sheriff County concerned conversations between 1938: 11 'Q. You advise probably best guilty? A. Well, only way answer just give you little conversation there, perhaps, wish to. 12 Relate will helpful. talking Moore—that statement—I better up says trouble. Tension high outside If are it, why then, says, stand pat forever after. Then told—I spoke about take Municipal lower back 'There Judge read can demand examination. there. It duty, me, protect you, use every effort command you,' but, 'the tension am telling happen started someone.' don't know language used. 13 Did tell sent immediately? Do remember saying anything like that? come said other, putting away getting certain colored fellows, group them, going interfere bunch Holland fellows meet go Jackson, they Galesburg therefore, avoided main route went through Gull Lake across hills there.' (Emphasis supplied.) 14 Although rejected worthy belief, instance corroborated given stand, 'that couldn't those conditions, riot, people do, me.' Petitioner statement Sheriff: 'After man wasn't nothing do. mostly scared than else.' Sheriff's insignificant other showed 'no threat mob violence, congregation stretch reasoning riotous gathering, while felt inclined precautions avoid trouble, situation existing indicate respondent coerced false placed fear insisting rights.' But plainly moment inquiry described exist. saw officers being continuously close confessed, hardly position test accuracy him. evaluated effect 17-year-old youth limited education mental intelligent, understanding supreme situation. 15 believe expectation planted mind youth, raises inference refusal motivated significant removed earliest moment. report consistent states examined.' A rejection cannot, case, constitute intelligent against fortified inferences drawn 867, emotional disturbance, Hallowell Cir., 197 926. 16 thus conclude ultimate invalidly obtained reversed, cause remanded inconsistent opinion. 18 Reversed remanded. 19 BURTON, whom FRANKFURTER, CLARK HARLAN concur, dissenting. 20 Court's decision rests view despite contrary conclusions Courts shown so alarmed able freely, issue, summarily affirmed authority Quicksall 339 660, 70 910, 94 1188, dealt comparable arose procedure. 21 contemporaneous attitude equanimity Weimer presiding trial. following immediately preceding acceptance guilty. portrayed having, interview, 'very whatever' 'freely voluntarily' guilt When making attention focused directly responsibility privileges. accordingly commands respect great weight. 22 By died prosecuting attorney, conducted State, suffered stroke rendering incapable testifying. testify, recollection demeanor 1938. 23 One chief deputy sheriff, lobby leaving penitentiary. His included following: 24 What notice, anything, appearance do appeared relaxed what? relaxed. There sign either physically speech. 25 Anything lead conclusion? To fear? 26 'A. Yes. nonchalant. *' 27 witness Judge, participated, assistant prosecutor, interrogation latter testified: 28 '* I, answers fair—were honest candid final That opinion, answered put seemed calm excited least. quite way. understand lack emotion happened claimed happened, she did.' 29 As this, offered quoted 163, 196. Sweet, presided credence opinion: 30 'While disregarded (petitioner), carefully (petitioner's) belief. arrived manner testifying, interest proceedings, many points conflict herein referred to.'1 31 leaves consideration sheriff's 162, 195. duty so, added "the used.' testify condition. Furthermore, comparison abundant others supporting Sweet's community violence discounted appears denial believed 'was 32 issue occurred ago. Three times concluded acted understandingly. record, affirm judgment. ago abolished capital punishment. Mich.Stat.Ann. (Henderson 1938) 28.548. 750.316. 664, 912, 1188. Moore, 344 Mich. 137, 73 N.W.2d 274. majority relied 1188; dissenting 584. 352 907, 150, 116. Defendant night arrest approximately o'clock morning day. 27, a.m. p.m. noon again confessed. municipal justice bound 28.1058, 768.35. practice see Mich.Acts 1957, 256; Mich.Court Rule 35—A, adopted June 4, 1947, effective September 1, 1947. mich.Stat.Ann.1954, 28.550, 750.318. 158; Smith O'Grady, 312 329, 61 572, 85 859; Betts Brady, 316 455, 1252, 1595; Kaiser, 323 471, 363, 398; Tomkins Missouri, 485, 370, 407; House 42, 517, 739; 1367; Hawk 326 271, 66 90 61; Canizio New York, 327 82, 452, 545; 172; Foster 134, 1716, 1955; Gayes 145, 1711, 1962; Marino Ragen, 561, 240, 170; Bute 333 640, 763, 986; Gryger Burke, 728, 1256, 1683; Townsend 736, 1690; Uveges Pennsylvania, 335 437, 69 184, 93 127; Gibbs 337 773, 1247, 1686; Palmer Ashe, 342 72 191, 96 154; Chandler Fretag, 348 3, 75 99 4; Massey 105, 135; examples conflicts presented testimony: large number hammered cell door, whereas sheriff sheriffs impossible reach door type conducive hammering. arraigning him, inform Several said: 'It late Weimer, (petitioner) informed represented indicated proceed received delay.' testifying place repeatedly unequivocally came chambers present, leading others, however, attend sessions occasion 'private interview'

Category: 0