Document: 467 U.S. 180 104 S.Ct. 2292 81 L.Ed.2d 146 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.William GOUVEIA et al. No. 83-128. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 20, 1984. Decided May 29, Syllabus Four respondents, who were all inmates in a federal prison, placed administrative detention individual cells during investigation 1978 murder fellow inmate. They remained without appointed counsel for approximately 19 months before their indictment on criminal charges and arraignment Federal District Court, when was them. The denied motion to dismiss asserted ground that confinement violated Sixth Amendment right counsel, they ultimately convicted murder. other two respondents eight 1979 another Counsel them released from arraigned indictment. also over contention preindictment counsel. On consolidated appeals, Appeals reversed. Although recognizing plurality this had concluded Kirby v. Illinois, 406 682, 92 1877, 32 411, attaches only formal judicial proceedings are initiated against an by way indictment, information, arraignment, or preliminary hearing, noted not prison case, indigent inmate is subject felony isolated more than 90 days, must be afforded after days else back into population. Held: Respondents constitutionally entitled appointment while segregation any adversary been Pp. 187-192. (a) at initiation defendant. Cf. supra, 688-689, S.Ct., 1881-1882. This interpretation consistent with literal language Amendment, which requires existence both "criminal prosecutio[n]" "accused," but purposes serves, including assuring aid trial "critical" pretrial accused confronted intricacies law expert advocacy public prosecutor, both. 187-189. (b) Appeals' analogy speedy cases—which hold may attach as early time arrest—is inapt. protect different interests, between arrest inmate's pending relevant proper determination attaches. 189-190. (c) holding confuses purpose served Fifth due process guarantee statutes limitations applicable particular crime being investigated. court concerned affording protection possibility Government might delay it developed its case unaided inmate, physical evidence deteriorate, witnesses' memories dim, alibi witnesses transferred facilities. Such concerns, legitimate ones, do implicate Providing defendant private investigator 191-192. 704 F.2d 1116 (CA9 1983), reversed remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Charles P. Diamond, Los Angeles, Cal., Mills, Joel Levine, Gouveia, Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 William Robert Ramirez, Adolpho Reynoso, Philip Segura murdering Lompoc, Cal. Mills Richard Pierce later same institution. Prison officials each respondent shortly murders, there extended period eventually indicted charges. appeal respondents' convictions, en banc Ninth Circuit held divided vote attorney return indictments them, because right, convictions overturned dismissed. (1983). We granted certiorari review novel application our precedents, 464 913, 272, 78 254 (1983), we now reverse. 2 November 11, 1978, Thomas Trejo, Correctional Institution found dead 45 stab wounds chest. agents Bureau Investigation began independent investigations immediately suspected Reynoso Gouveia Administrative Detention Unit (ADU) Lompoc. general population 22, obtained further information about murder, December 4, returned ADU, Ramirez ADU well. Later December, disciplinary hearings, determined four participated ordered continued ADU. While separated confined cells. participation various programs curtailed, still allowed regular visitation rights, exercise periods, access legal materials, unmonitored phone calls. F.2d, 1118; see generally 28 CFR §§ 541.19, 541.20(d) months. June 17, 1980, grand jury first-degree conspiracy commit violation 18 U.S.C. 1111 1117 respectively. July 14, court, Magistrate 3 Before filed indictments, arguing commission rights under or, alternatively, trial, Central California motion, proceeded trial. Their first lasted weeks, ended mistrial. retrial, counts sentenced consecutive life 99-year terms imprisonment. 4 scenario much Pierce. Inmate Hall stabbed death Lompoc August 1979. Immediately afterwards examined doctor questioned FBI regarding involvement investigation. September 13, 1979, conducted murdered Hall, where next 27, § conveyance weapon 1792, charge assault 113(c). At April 21, 5 alleging 8-month dismiss. A panel remanded triggered yet arrested accused, made insufficient showing actual prejudice so justify dismissal grounds. 641 785, cert. denied, 454 902, 102 409, 70 221 (1981). then 6 Appeals, proceeding banc, appeals six addressed issue whether investigated activities. 1119.1 majority recognized 411 (1972), hearing. no such case. 7 went note, however, point prosecution crimes. 1120. In analogized cases, has answer See Marion, 404 307, 320, 455, 463, 30 468 (1971). reasoned just constitutes "accusation" purposes, purposes.2 Thus, according holding, population, order ensure he his lawyer will able take investigatory steps preserve defense 1124. 8 Applying test facts It record showed longer least part investigation,3 requested conclude appropriate remedy redressing violations reversal them.4 9 Five judges dissented majority's holding. Relying dissent even context, conclusion contrary shows misunderstanding guarantee. 1127-1129. agree dissenting judges' precedents situation, and, accordingly, reverse segregation. 10 guarantees "[i]n prosecutions, shall enjoy . have Assistance defence." As noted, cases long summarized prior follows: 11 "In line constitutional stemming Court's landmark Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, firmly established person's Fourteenth him. supra; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461; Hamilton 368 52, 157, 114; Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799; White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 193; Massiah States, 377 201, 84 1199, 12 246; Wade, 388 218, 87 S.Ct.1926, 1149; Gilbert California, 263, 1951, 1178; Coleman 399 1, 1999, 26 387. ". [W]hile members differed contexts some above those involved points proceedings—whether charge, arraignment." Id., U.S., 1881-1882 (emphasis original). 13 view does until confirmed subsequent Kirby. Estelle Smith, 451 454, 469-470, 101 1866, 1876, 68 359 (1981); Moore 434 220, 226-227, 98 463-464, 54 424 (1977); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 398-399, 97 1232, 1239, 51 Mandujano, 425 564, 581, 96 1768, 1778, 48 212 (1976) (opinion BURGER, C.J.).5 14 That serves. "core purpose" assure "when [is] prosecutor." Ash, 413 300, 309, 93 2568, 2573, 37 619 (1973). Indeed 15 "embodies realistic recognition obvious truth average professional skill himself brought tribunal power liberty, wherein presented experienced learned counsel." 462-463, 1022, 1461 (1938). 16 accused's certain proceedings, 1926, 1149 (1967), done "the confronted, procedural system, adversary, both," 310, 2574, situation results confrontation "might well settle fate reduce itself mere formality." 224, 1930. 17 given plain protecting layman critical confrontations "is far formalism." 689, 1882. "that government committed prosecute, adverse positions solidified. finds faced prosecutorial forces organized society, immersed substantive law." Ibid. departed these doing, fundamentally misconceived nature Our "arrest charge," MacDonald, 456 6-7, 1497, 1501-1502, 71 696 (1982); Lovasco, 431 783, 788-789, 2044, 2047-2048, 52 752 Dillingham 423 64, 303, 46 205 (1975) (per curiam); never arrest. difference readily explainable, fact interests. exists trial-type primarily individual's liberty interest, "to minimize lengthy incarceration lesser, nevertheless substantial, impairment imposed bail, shorten disruption caused presence unresolved charges." 8, 1502. Barker Wingo, 407 514, 532-533, 2182, 2192-2193, 33 (1972); 463. attempt draw relevance analyzing attaches.6 concludes extension context necessary charges, thus delaying develops 1122. By decides bring felt, could dimmed, facilities, deteriorated. 1126. Those certainly simply concerns implicating reaffirm "possibility [to resulting passage time] sufficient reason wrench context." 321-322, 463-464. release concluded, quite illogically believe, somehow prevent deterioration evidence, begin effective within restricted walls discover Government's Of course, inside outside true help prepare better defense. But, suggested provide investigator, adopt bottom, concern already little incentive promptly him, particularly prejudicial problems inherent investigating crimes, transient reluctance cooperate. But prosecution's bringing stale defendant, 2047-2048; 322, 464, beyond protection, if statute limitations, can prove deliberate device gain advantage him presenting 789-790, 2048-2049; 324, 465.7 protections apply defendants walls, decline depart traditional additional here. 20 wrong Accordingly, judgment remand opinion. 21 ordered. 22 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring judgment. 23 "Whatever mean, Amendments means person him—'whether arraignment.' " 398, (1977) supplied) (quoting 1882, (1972) (plurality opinion)). statement, foreclose circumstances rule consistently followed. Today seems broader rule, stating defendant." Ante, 187 supplied). Because I believe statement unjustified unnecessary decide cannot join 24 Escobedo 378 478, 1758, 977 (1964), squarely Amendment's filed. custody explained: 25 "The interrogation here petitioner formally indicted. should make difference. When requested, opportunity consult lawyer, ceased 'an unsolved crime.' Petitioner become 'get him' confess guilt despite so." 485, 1762 (citation omitted) Spano New York, 360 315, 327, 79 1202, 1209, 1265 (1959) (Stewart, J., concurring)). added: "It would exalt form substance circumstances, depend interrogation, authorities secured had, practical charged murder." 486, 1762.1 27 dictum concerning likewise inconsistent Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966). There, custodial suspect present, afford represent free charge. id., 469-473, 1625-1627. beginning adversarial proceedings: system commences, distinguishing outset inquisitorial countries." 477, 1629. 2009, 387 (1970) (Harlan, part); Dickey Florida, 398 30, 44, 1564, 1572, (BRENNAN, concurring); Oliver, 505 301, 305, n. (CA7 1974).2 illustrates how jurisprudence turned rather citizen. analysis lineup identifications noting "in addition counsel's guaranteed need stand alone State stage prosecution, informal, out, absence derogate fair trial." 226, 1932. reviewed concluded: 29 "[W]e scrutinize determine defendant's basic affected meaningfully cross-examine assistance itself." 227, 1932 adhered formulation cases. Henry, 447 264, 269, 100 2183, 2186, 65 115 (1980); Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 122-123, 95 854, 867-868, 43 (1975); Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 238-240, 2041, 2053-2054, 36 854 (1973); 9, 2003 opinion). Perhaps most telling (1973), dealing photographic identification perpetrator witness. Stewart argued "this 'right initiated,' 2580 judgment) 688, 1881 opinion)), path took. acknowledged "extension events resulted changing patterns procedure tended generate appropriately considered itself," 2574. utilized called examination event required coping meeting adversary." 313, 2575.3 31 If interrogate otherwise facilitate making rationale Escobedo, Miranda, sufficiently "accused" Amendment. subjecting uncounseled questioning techniques present high probability substantial harm identified controlling Wade," Gerstein, 123, 868. deprived convict deprivation likely intended effect, is, my judgment, "an accused." did serve accusatorial function. Under regulations, kept security risk posed.4 After administrators inmates. doubt welfare themselves fully justified entirely apart relation ongoing Hewitt Helms, 459 460, 473-476, 103 864, 872-874, 74 675 Indeed, finding either behest efforts, nor facilitated murders issue.5 murderers effect facilitating serving institutional policies. find extent purports formulate it, 34 MARSHALL, dissenting. 35 misreads development doctrine states "our 187. STEVENS demonstrates, ante, 193-197, situations proceedings. See, e.g., 485-492, 1762-1765, (1964). stemmed appreciation transform officially designating through ritual arraignment. Moreover, treats effect. ." 197. Unlike reject reasoning concurs because, view, transfer harsher constraints detention1 function" instead interests correctional institution themselves. My reading factfinding courts below leads me conclusion. With respect Pierce, stated, portion "Factual Background," detention, finger suspicion" pointed App. Pet. Cert. 45a-46a. corroborated officials' own notation detained "pending act," 138-139, odd course transpired detention: seeking alongside unusually 42a-47a. therefore concluding "commitment [administrative detention] neither discipline security," "part parcel sequence prosecutive acts integrally related sanctions." 47a-48a. findings affirmed Appeals. 1116, 1125 repeatedly stated 'cannot undertake concurrent very exceptional error.' Berenyi Director, INS, 385 630, 635, 666, 670, 656 (1967) quoting, Graver Mfg. Co. Linde Co., 336 271, 275, 69 535, 538, 672 (1949). error made. benefit judge's explicit factual Segura, Gouveia. However, admission one "because pendency Brief 26. supports "each [respondent] result 1125. 38 disposition issue, reaches posed case: erred dismissing respondents. claims decision Morrison, 449 361, 665, 66 564 assumed, arguendo, occurred "demonstrated kind ability her adequate representation. 366, 669. that, right-to-counsel inappropriate "absent demonstrable prejudice, threat thereof," 365, 668, presumption contravene remedies tailored injury suffered unnecessarily infringe competing interests." 364, 668. 39 warranted Morrison standard presumption-of-prejudice felt compelled articulate alternative "fundamentally different" insofar inmate-suspects detention. setting ordinarily impossible adequately refute existence." disagree Appeals; demonstrates affecting prisoners, usual case-specific inquiry warranted. assumption "there 'substantial prejudice' occurred" satisfies requirement persons show "demonstrable thereof. 668 added). amply supported record.2 40 reached though reasoning, respectfully dissent. narrow us today situation. contended retain 1119. privileges calls attorneys 541.19(c)(10), ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 570, 94 2963, 2981, 41 935 (1974), retained Baxter Palmigiano, 308, 1551, 1556, 47 810 (1976). arrived 90-day figure based current regulations allowing up reasons. 541.20(c) Solicitor General vehemently argues whatever reasons legitimately contributed confine primary Thus security-related equated accusation purposes. 23-27; Tr. Oral Arg. 9-12. makes irrelevant us, triggered. challenged legitimacy appropriateness" 1121. absent specific 44-60. Given occasion address question. arguable deviations (1966), clear privilege self-incrimination vindicate Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 1682, 1689, 64 297 1882; Jersey, 719, 729-730, 1772, 1778-1779, 882 express us. Circuit, like several Circuits, see, Daniels, 698 221, 223 (CA4 1983); Blevins, 593 646, 647 (CA5 1979) curiam), constitute "arrest" right. Clardy, 540 439, 441, 429 963, 391, 50 331 Clardy somewhat strained. rejected arguments prosecutors obligated file soon probable cause establish reasonable doubt, 791, 2049, marshal enough complete. 792-795, 2049-2051. 487, 6, 1763, ("The English Judges' Rules recognize functional applied here, special significance attached indictment"). embrace similar advocated Escobedo. 493-494, 1766-1767 dissenting). To say, "prime full effectuation self-incrimination," 729, 1779, merely state central attachment commencement process; contradicts proposition elaborates: number confessions police diminish significantly, 'any worth salt tell uncertain circumstances.' argument, cuts ways. many 'stage advice' surely needed. indeed hollow few obtained. There necessarily direct relationship importance quest confession criticalness advice. Constitution, unlike others, strikes balance favor advised self-incrimination." 488, 1763-1764 (footnotes citations omitted). Contrary intimations, cites 187-188, indicate embraced broad dictum. "attaches initiated," 1778 opinion), joined majority. Similarly, THE CHIEF JUSTICE's 1876-1877, (1981), (1977), describe what attach, plurality's satisfied. consider ever plurality. quotation left open. regulation indicates pose others: Warden place poses serious life, property, self, staff, orderly running inmate: "(1) Is hearing regulations; "(2) "(3) act. 541.22(a) construed Prisons' permit days. 1124-1125 1983) (en banc). Assuming construction correct, mean accusatory. contrary, states: "Administrative used short periods except needs long-term ., tied complex investigative concerns." 541.22(c)(1) (1983) permits alone. Finally, improper, MARSHALL disagrees record, relying Pierce's "was post, 200 (dissenting denominate "finding fact," "conclusion predicate conclusion, segregation, policies "would [respondent]s' secure facility commitment," 43a. For matter support Subjection meant daily 1118 prejudiced especially reliable "[b] ecause irrevocable loss exculpatory testimony government's failure defendants' remedied [with prejudice]." 50a.

Category: 0