Document: 373 U.S. 503 83 S.Ct. 1336 10 L.Ed.2d 513 Raymond L. HAYNES, Petitioner,v.STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 147. Argued Feb. 26 and 27, 1963. Decided May Lawrence Speiser, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George A. Kain, Spokane, Wash., respondent. Mr. Justice GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner, Haynes, was tried in a Superior Court State Washington on charge robbery, found guilty by jury, sentenced to imprisonment 'for term not more than 20 years.' Supreme affirmed conviction, with four nine judges dissenting. 58 Wash.2d 716, 364 P.2d 935. Certiorari granted, 370 902, 82 1252, 8 399, consider whether admission petitioner's written signed confession into evidence against him at trial constituted denial due process law. 2 Haynes contends that involuntary, thus constitutionally inadmissible, because induced police threats promises. He testified during approximately 16-hour period between time his arrest making signing confession, he several times asked allow call an attorney wife. said such requests were uniformly refused repeatedly told would be allowed unless until 'cooperated' gave them admitting participation robbery. permitted phone wife, or matter anyone, either night next day. persisted their refusals contact outside world, said, even after one preliminary hearing before magistrate, late day following arrest. According was, fact, held incommunicado some five seven days arrest.1 3 asserts version events is contradicted, freely given, that, any event, question voluntariness conclusively resolved petitioner verdict jury trial. We each these contentions turn. I. 4 charged robbing gasoline service station City about 9 p.m. Thursday, December 19, 1957. arrested Spokane vicinity within one-half hour crime.2 Though orally admitted robbery officers while en route station, arrival there, crime, but instead booked 'investigation,' or, as it locally called, placed 'small book.' Concededly, prisoners book' are neither make calls nor have visitors.3 5 Shortly arriving p.m., questioned Lieutenant Wakeley police, which again crime. then line-up identified witnesses robbers. Apparently, nothing else done night. 6 On morning, beginning 9:30 a.m., half, this Detectives Peck Cockburn. once transcribed. thereafter, taken office deputy prosecutor, where still another statement sign second did earlier given Cockburn.4 Later same afternoon magistrate hearing; 20, 7 At conclusion hearing, transferred county jail Tuesday Thursday returned prosecutor's office. had there six earlier, do so. from Cockburn morning introduced over proper timely objection counsel use violate Under procedure effect,5 treated fact ultimate determination jury. In overruling judge, however, made apparently voluntary 'conditionally' admissible. See Wash.2d, 719 720, P.2d, 937. going heard issue submitted it. general required to, not, indicate its view respect confession. II. first circumstances surrounding evidentially contradicted should rejected carefully reviewed entire record, find Haynes' account uncontradicted essential elements. evening specific Each request, refused. stated, might if confessed: 11 'They kept wanting me own up Richfield Service Station I (Detective) Pike could lawyer cooperated * call, call. *' 12 cross-examination, Wakeley, officer who interrogated arrest, ask permission merely inquired wife notified notified.6 Defense counsel, pursued point and, only moment later, 'may have' himself; didn't 'remember exactly we wouldn't notify wife.' simply 'remember' so she secure him; addition, lieutenant interrogation completed. Detective Pike, also testifying trial, talked 13 If coercion inducement face problem determining whether, testimony sufficient, review Court, establish existence impermissible conduct barring ultimately obtained. need pursue inquiry, since record contains other probative, convincing, evidence. 14 dictated transcribed being testified: 15 'Q. (S)tate you give statement. Yes. 16 And what your answer that? wanted my 17 wife? 18 This Friday? Friday. 19 20th? anything telephone call? (sic) both when they see soon got 21 Well, wasn't it? too, times. 22 Who you' Oh, Pike. Peck, believe. 23 statement? readily. 24 Did Yes.' 25 itself discloses early least talk prosecutor proceeding further. told: 'We just want get down our records, will go questions am.' Whatever contradition explicit description questioning taking challenged remains testimonially undisputed. took stand deny conceded 'could request. No legal alchemy can transmute wholly equivocal refutation recitation events. testify no presented contradict testimony, part prosecution's case chief importantly, way rebuttal subsequent testimony. cannot attribute significance failure State, listening direct attempt crucial evidence; testimonial void meaningful light availability willing co-operation policemen who, honestly able so, readily denied defendant's claims. Similarly, offered requested refused.7 27 possession adequate justify without delay, uncontroverted granted acceded demands Nor indication prior advised authorities right remain silent, warned answers used him, rights respecting consultation attorney. 28 contradiction supplied nonetheless continued detention persisting efforts signature statement.8 Upon week incommunicado, earlier. because, 'all promises all been fulfilled under conditions counsel.' rebut testimony.9 Similarly interview Thursday—Haynes quite certain—but, 29 contested exchange: 30 Have promises? 31 Has threats? No—except promised 32 You investigation—you haven't yet. When are, 33 argues quoted two negative police. bears reading, however. disclose 'booking' prerequisite calling must mean booking Since already enough warrant charging robbery—they oral admissions, identification witnesses—the fair inference drawn secured additional desired, pressing. portions support events; view, offer viable reliable contradiction. 34 Even otherwise, substantial doubt probative effect accorded recitations involuntarily induced. Cf. Haley v. Ohio, 332 596, 601, 68 302, 304, 92 L.Ed. 224 (opinion Douglas). It anomalous, indeed, statement, contained very document asserted obtained coercive pressures, create evidentiary conflict precluding Court's effective constitutional issue. Common sense dictates successful compelling totally incriminating guilt, determination, little, any, trouble securing self-contained concession voluntariness. Certainly, accord conclusive import admission, particularly when, here, immediately followed supporting III. 35 atmosphere created statements actions state authorities. recently through violative 'the overborne confessed,' Lynumn Illinois, 372 528, 534, 917, 920, 922. 'In short, true test admissibility freely, voluntarily, compulsion sort.' Wilson United States, 162 613, 623, 895, 40 1090. Bram 168 532, 183, 42 568. And, course, improper determined examination attendant circumstances. See, e.g., Leyra Denno, 347 556, 558, 74 717, 98 948.10 undisputed permits totality evidencing involuntary guilt. 36 Here, Lynumn, supra, alone hands advise aid 'no reason believe ample power carry out threats,' U.S., S.Ct., continue, much longer be, detention—as actually done. Neither contacts previously admissions negatives effectiveness tactics resisted consistent denials conditioning upon accession demands. Confronted express threat promise communication access family understandably chose damning statement; unfair inherently context made, choice product free unconstrained will, Fourteenth Amendment. 37 blind ourselves experience unmistakably teaches: apart threat, basic techniques present here—the secret interrogation—are devices adapted extort confessions suspects. Of detection solution crime is, best, difficult arduous task requiring persistence responsible duty law enforcement. certainly, suggest suspects impermissible. Such undoubtedly tool line permissible methods offensive draw, cases necessary fine judgments psychologically pressures inducements mind accused. But escape judging appraisals inherent violated. here impelled conclusion, facts presented, bounds exceeded. IV. 38 Our foreclosed, contends, judge may reached different result 39 well settled adjudiciation resting requires Due Process Clause Amendment has violated coerced subject independent see, Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 147—148, 64 921, 923, 88 1192; 'we responsibility record,' Spano New York, 360 315, 316, 79 1202, 1203, 1265. While, purposes ordinarily resolve conflicts entitled weight voluntariness, avoid responsibilities permitting 'completely bound court decision claim federal right, frustrated distorted finding.' Stein 346 156, 181, 73 1077, 1091, 97 1522. As courts instances this, primary protecting rights, appropriate resolutions occurrence nonoccurrence factual happenings. apposite closest scene afforded best opportunity evaluate contradictory But, declared Ward Texas, 316 547, 550, 62 1139, 1141, 86 1663, 'when, case, properly raised defendant precluded amounts process.' To effect, 1265; Thomas Arizona, 356 390, 393, 78 885, 887, 863; Payne Arkansas, 560, 562, 568, 844, 847, 850, 975; Lisenba California, 314 219, 237—238, 280, 290, 166; Chambers Florida, 309 227, 228, 60 472, 473, 84 716. Beyond nature precedents, refusing inquiry foreclosed submitted. instructed, relevant reminded cautioned counsel.11 consequence factors otherwise have, unquestionably accused appropriately considered confession.12 41 instructed terms statute consideration corroborated 'made inducement' excepts influence fear produced threats.'13 seems reasonably clear portion instructions misled requisite standard, notwithstanding apparent propriety instructions. Given return guilty, obviously knowing admissible not. Because sufficient sustain verdict, though involuntary; alternatively, based finding guilt reasoning, questionable statute, voluntary, improperly induced, Although, reasons indicated, raise serious standard applied rely imperfections separate ground reversal. think clear, entirely preclude dependence place settling here. V. reaching do, unmindful tending demonstrate Rogers Richmond, 365 541, 81 735, 740, 760: 43 'Indeed, many command compelled us reverse convictions involving methods, corroborating left little truth confessed. Despite verification, inducement.' 44 regard innocence here; decide new infirmity, liberty order. 45 illustrates particular facet utilization methods. While history amply shows often extorted save enforcement officials effort obtaining valid evidence, designed obtain incontrovertibly complete obtained, investigative efforts, competent conviction. procedures less impermissible, perhaps unwarranted unnecessary. There reasonable rational basis claiming oppressive utilized protection public. claim, cases, employed prosecution party made. 46 Official overzealousness type vitiates conviction below deleterious effects. Here put expense prosecuting appellate now, require greater expenditure event retrial, likely. deprivation protected themselves fundamental most regrettable, individual defendant, system justice. Whether involved brutal 'third degree,' subtle, offensive, obtaining, official misconduct breed disrespect law, those 47 judgment vacated remanded further proceedings inconsistent herewith. ordered. 48 Judgment directions. 49 CLARK, whom HARLAN, STEWART WHITE join, 50 1957, 9:05 report received Police filling progress certain area city. broadcast cars working area. Twenty-five minutes later uniformed riding car near reported observed walking street. approached went yard home vicinity. drove called officers. Petitioner indicated 'he lived there' talking officers, walked onto porch house began fumbling screen door unlock remained curb observing few moments spontaneously exclaimed 'You me, let's go.' car, robbed. arrived detective o'clock midnight shift. related objection, testimony: 51 'A. (By Lt. Wakeley.) decided hold around seem customers know streets, town well. They car. saw business, parked alley man holdup brother stood behind money operator. After ran side street, directly toward end block come back approaching custody. So turned north blocks west three prowl came along stopped going. porch. sat move, thought well, up. looking for.' 52 Thus surrender confessions—both objection—identical details finds coerced. i reversal abrupt departure rule laid enlargement requirements heretofore visited cases. therefore dissent. 53 youthful age (though exact shown record) lacking breaking. married skilled sheet-metal worker temporarily unemployed. Some approximate years employer, brush i.e., drunken driving, resisting driver's license. Further, 1949 convicted breaking entering, 1950 During year pleaded 'taking car.' served parole years, regular visits assigned. cannot, therefore, category types people dealt, mentally subnormal accused, Fikes Alabama, 352 191, 77 281, 246 (1957); 975 (1958), Reck Pate, 367 U.S, 433, 1541, 948 (1961); offender, 595, (1948), Gallegos Colorado, 49, 1209, 325 (1962); naive impressionable 922 (1963). contrary, mature adult appears, average intelligence stranger custodial unaware reliance supra,1 completely misplaced. 54 say young, weak disturbed susceptible coercion, consistently regarded important voluntarily Along environment occurred. long recognized physical torture Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 56 461, 80 682 (1936). contention abuse sophisticated associated practices. extended repeated interrogation,2 sleep food,3 psychiatric techniques.4 external mob violence5 furnishing subvert rationality will. 55 condone holding course supervisory courts. intellect will,' 440, 1546, 'is facts.' Malinski 324 401, 404, 65 781, 783, 89 1029 (1945), citing 166 (1941), 1192 (1944). attorney, Cicenia Lagay, 357 504, 1297, 1523 Crooker 1287, 1448 controlling 'held subjected periods, deprived advice counsel,' showing 'so lost freedom action' own, 240—241, 291—292. Finally, statutes treatment does 'not furnish answer' Id., 235, 289; Nebraska, 342 55, 72 141, 96 (1951). issue, relating certainly disputed. unequivocally conversation, recall 'at night.'6 57 concludes, then, telling booked, wrung 436, 1290, inducement, despite 'was 'after (the) investigation concluded attorney." age, comparative absence circumstances, never, evidenced conclude involuntary. contrary conclusion. Therefore, affirm us. makes physically abused, food rest, uninterrupted prolonged periods. brother, Keith with, of, seek Apparently recognizing practice, told, abandoned restrictive appears shortly 1/4 hours arrested. brief, total '17 19' hours. assume, sufficiently accurate. revised rules practice provide court, presence 937, Rules Pleading, Practice Procedure, Wash.Rev.Code, Rule 101.20W, Vol. O, amended, January 2, 1961. notified. telephoned noon information beyond her husband held. herself specifically why jail, 'to paper read it.' contravention § 9.33.020(5), prohibits misdemeanor 'refuse (an) person communicate friends attorney' refusal purpose occurring completion challenged, action tends bear happened displays confirms disregard note 7, defendant. 600, 'were rather concerned primarily convict him. undeviating intent extract patent. shown, examined careful scrutiny *.' 324, 1207, himself appeared witness directed recalled controvert 197—198, 284—285, 246; Gallagos 65, 147, Reed). jury: 'And connection, instruct rendered obliged reply, represented That take cited succeeding instruction connection 10, supra. commenced: 'By provided: "The except threats; testimony." (1963), woman 'had previous criminal threats.' 920. She confessed cooperate imprisoned children away them. 1265 (1959); 1663 (1942); 716 (1940). (1958). (1954); cf. (1945). 3, supra; follows: conversation (when interrogated) Not conversation. night? afterward, have. don't remember you, substance lawyer? No, that.'

Category: 0