Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/395/213/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:24:00+00:00

Document:
The standards which this Court established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, for determining the admissibility into evidence of in-custody statements do not apply to persons whose retrials have commenced after the date of that decision if their original trials had begun before that date. Cf. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719. Pp. 395 U. S. 213-222.
___ Del. ___, 240 A.2d 146, affirmed.
originally tried prior to that decision. [Footnote 2] We hold that they do not.
Petitioner was arrested on the morning of March 17, 1965, as a murder suspect, and was interrogated on three separate occasions, at 11:30 a.m., 2:50 p.m., and 7:05 p.m. Although indigent, he was not advised that he had the right to have an attorney present at the State's expense. Approximately 10 minutes after the evening interrogation began, petitioner gave the police a statement in which he admitted struggling with the victim during a burglary the preceding evening.
Petitioner's first trial commenced on January 13, 1966. He did not take the stand, but his incriminating statement was admitted into evidence. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree and burglary in the fourth degree. Disregarding the jury's recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to death. During the pendency of petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware, we decided Miranda and Johnson. In reversing petitioner's conviction on various state grounds, the Delaware Supreme Court also determined, sua sponte, that, under Johnson, petitioner's statement, which was obtained without fully advising him of his constitutional rights, would be admissible at his retrial. ___ Del. ___, 230 A.2d 262 (1967). It reasoned that the retrial would be a mere continuation of the case originally commenced prior to our decision in Miranda.
of a disagreement among state courts over this issue, [Footnote 3] we granted certiorari. 393 U.S. 950 (1968). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
"[f]uture defendants will benefit fully from our new standards governing in-custody interrogation, while past defendants may still avail themselves of the voluntariness test."
Id. at 384 U. S. 732. Delaware suggests that petitioner, who was tried six months before Miranda, cannot be regarded as a "future" defendant within the meaning of Johnson. That there is language in Johnson supporting the positions of both petitioner and respondent demonstrates what some courts and commentators have readily recognized: in that decision, we did not consider the applicability of Miranda to retrials. [Footnote 6] The issue simply was not presented.
offenses. This anomaly could result if one of the defendants had been previously tried for the same offense prior to Miranda. This identical result, however, is also possible under our more recent prospectivity decisions. Because both Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969), and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967), selected the date on which the prohibited practice was engaged in, rather than the date the trial commenced, to determine the applicability of newly formulated constitutional standards, those standards do not apply to retrials of defendants originally tried prior to the dates the standards were announced. In fact, under those decisions, different rules could govern where neither defendant had been tried before, depending upon when the condemned practice was engaged in.
Moreover, as petitioner acknowledges, Johnson made it quite clear that Miranda need not be applied to trials commenced prior to that decision but not yet final when it was announced. On that date, petitioner's case was in precisely that posture. The type of apparent incongruity petitioner urges us to avoid is equally present in refusing to apply Miranda to defendants whose cases, like petitioner's, were not final on the date Miranda was decided, yet making an exception for petitioner simply because he was afforded a post-Miranda retrial for reasons wholly unrelated to the admissibility of his incriminating statement. Nor is petitioner's hypothetical more disconcerting than applying the new standards for in-custody interrogation to Ernesto Miranda while denying them to other defendants whose cases, for wholly fortuitous reasons, simply reached this Court at a later date, although the defendants in those cases may have been both interrogated and tried after Ernesto Miranda.
highlights the problem inherent in prospective decisionmaking, i.e., some defendants benefit from the new rule, while others do not, solely because of the fortuities that determine the progress of their cases from initial investigation and arrest to final judgment. The resulting incongruities must be balanced against the impetus the technique provides for the implementation of long overdue reforms, which otherwise could not be practicably effected. Thus, raising the specter of potential anomalies does not further the difficult decision of selecting the precise event that should determine the prospective application of a newly formulated constitutional principle.
would be imposed upon prosecuting authorities by requiring them to find evidentiary substitutes for statements obtained in violation of the constitutional protections afforded by Miranda.
"substantive test of voluntariness which, because of the persistence of abusive practices, has become increasingly meticulous . . . [taking] specific account of the failure to advise the accused of his privilege against self-incrimination or to allow him access to outside assistance."
that Miranda does not apply to any retrial [Footnote 10] of a defendant whose first trial commenced prior to June 13, 1966.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 381 U. S. 640, and Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 384 U. S. 736.
The word "retrial" is used in this opinion to refer only to a subsequent trial of a defendant whose original trial for the same conduct commenced prior to June 13, 1966, the day on which Miranda was announced.
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been adequately resolved by the court below. See Jenkins v. State, ___ Del. ___, 230 A.2d 262 (1967), and Jenkins v. State, ___ Del. ___, 240 A.2d 146 (1968).
At least eight States, including Delaware, decline to apply Miranda to post-Miranda retrials of cases originally tried prior to that decision. See People v. Worley, 37 Ill.2d 439, 227 N.E.2d 746 (1967) (dictum); Boone v. State, 3 Ill.App. 11, 237 A.2d 787 (Md.Ct. Sp. App.) (dictum), cert. to Md.Ct.App. denied, 393 U.S. 872 (1968); Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 162 N.W.2d 698 (1968); State v. Vigliano, 50 N.J. 51, 232 A.2d 129 (1967) (dictum); People v. Sayers, 22 N.Y.2d 571, 240 N.E.2d 540 (1968); State v. Lewis, 274 N.C. 438 164 S.E. & 177 (1968) (dictum); Murphy v. State, 221 Tenn. 351, 426 S.W.2d 509 (1968).
At least nine other States have indicated in dicta that Miranda should be applied to such retrials. See Smith v. State, 282 Ala. 268, 210 So.2d 826 (1968); State v. Brock, 101 Ariz. 168, 416 P.2d 601 (1966); People v. Doherty, 67 Cal.2d 9, 429 P.2d 177 (1967); State v. Ruiz, 49 Haw. 504, 421 P.2d 305 (1966); Dell v. State, 249 Ind. 231, 231 N.E.2d 522 (1967); State v. McCarther, 197 Kan. 279, 416 P.2d 290 (1966); Creech v. Commonwealth, 412 S.W.2d 245 (Ct.App. Ky.1967); State v. Shoner, 31 Wis.2d 412, 143 N.W.2d 458 (1966). In State v. Bradshaw, 101 R.I. 233, 237, n. 1, 221 A.2d 815, 817, n. 1 (1966), the court expressly declined to pass on the issue in an opinion reversing a conviction on other grounds, but it nevertheless suggested that, under Johnson, the defendant's statement might not be admissible at his retrial.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held Miranda applicable, United States v. Phillips, 401 F.2d 301 (C.A. 7th Cir.1968), and that holding is supported by dicta in at least three other circuits. See United States v. Young, 388 F.2d 675 (C.A. 9th Cir.1968); Virgin Islands v. Lovell, 378 F.2d 799, 802, n. 4 (C.A.3d Cir.1967); Gibson v. United States, 363 F.2d 146 (C.A. 5th Cir.1966). Without discussion, the Fourth Circuit appears to have reached a contrary result by implication. Moorer v. South Carolina, 368 F.2d 458 (C.A.4th Cir.1966).
E.g., United States v. Phillips, supra; People v. Doherty, supra.
E.g., People v. Worley, supra; State v. Vigliano, supra.
E.g., Smith v. State, supra; People v. Worley, supra; People v. Sayers, supra; Comment, The Applicability of Miranda to Retrials 116 U.Pa.L.Rev. 31, 320 (1967); Comment, Post-Miranda Retrials of Pre-Miranda Defendants, 25 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 108, 109 (1968).
"Sound growth can be promoted and erratic results avoided by focusing attention on the element of reliance that justifies the technique. Even when that is done, there will not always be agreement as to the quality or degree of reliance that justifies a particular prospective limitation. But the area of disaffection will be narrowed if time before and time after are measured from the moment of reliance."
Schaefer, The Control of "Sunbursts": Techniques of Prospective Overruling, 42 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 631, 646 (1967).
"The investigation of this brutal assault and the interrogation of defendant began in January, 1955 -- more than 12 years previous to this retrial. The evidence is clear that, in 1955, defendant was warned of his constitutional rights in accordance with the requirements then prevailing."
State v. Lewis, 1 N.C.App. 296, 297-298, 161 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1968).
See, e.g., United States v. Phillips, supra, (discretion abused by admitting unduly "prejudicial" evidence); State v. Ruiz, supra ("plain error" in trial court's fact finding); Boone v. State, supra (insufficient corroboration of accomplice's testimony).
For purposes of this holding, it is immaterial whether state law treats a retrial as the continuation of the original trial, see, e.g., People v. Worley, supra, or as a completely new trial that proceeds as if the former trial never occurred. See, e.g., State v. Brock, supra. What is determinative is that the defendant is being tried for the same conduct that was the subject of a previously reversed conviction. A State is free, of course, for any reason it finds persuasive, to apply Miranda to a subsequent trial of a defendant whose original trial commenced prior to that decision. See Johnson v. New Jersey, supra, at 384 U. S. 733.
As one who has never agreed with the Miranda case, but nonetheless felt bound by it, * I now find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to dissent from a holding which actually serves to curtail the impact of that decision.
Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 394 U. S. 256 (1969); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965). But since, as to the retroactivity issue, I am also bound by Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966), I must judge that issue within the confines of Johnson, which does not appear to have been overruled by what was done in Desist v. United States, supra.
In the Johnson case, we held that the "guidelines" of Miranda should apply to all "persons whose trials had not begun as of June 13, 1966," 384 U.S. at 384 U. S. 734, the date on which Miranda was handed down. Today, however, the Court holds that Miranda does not apply to persons whose retrials have commenced after that date, if the original trial had begun before Miranda was decided. I find it quite impossible to discern in the rationale of Johnson any solid basis for the distinction now drawn.
The Court states that the retroactivity rule adopted in Johnson was "an effort to extend the protection of Miranda to as many defendants as was consistent with society's legitimate concern that convictions already validly obtained not be needlessly aborted." Ante at 395 U. S. 219. I too believe that a desire not to interfere with trials which were concluded or already under way at the time of Miranda lay at the core of what was done in Johnson. See 384 U.S. at 384 U. S. 732-735. But that rationale would seem to require application of Miranda to subsequent retrials, rather than the contrary result mandated by the Court. When a defendant has had his pre-Miranda conviction set aside on other than Miranda grounds and is being retried, there is by hypothesis no "conviction . . . validly obtained" which might be "needlessly aborted" by application of the Miranda standards. There is no ongoing trial in which the prosecution's strategy might have been premised on pre-Miranda confession rules.
I am also left wholly unpersuaded by the Court's statement that application of Miranda to retrials would impose an intolerable "evidentiary burden" on prosecutors, for the Court ignores the fact that Miranda will impose a very similar burden whenever a defendant's first trial has for one reason or another been substantially delayed and its commencement carried beyond the Johnson cut-off date.
Apart from the two propositions just discussed, the Court offers nothing in justification of its trial-retrial distinction beyond the general observation that the retroactivity "technique" necessarily entails "incongruities" which must be tolerated because of "the impetus the technique provides for the implementation of long overdue reforms, which otherwise could not be practicably effected." Ante at 395 U. S. 218. But surely it is incumbent upon this Court to endeavor to keep such incongruities to a minimum. This in my opinion can only be done by turning our backs on the ad hoc approach that has so far characterized our decisions in the retroactivity field and proceeding to administer the doctrine on principle. See my dissenting opinion in Desist, supra. What is done today leads me again, see ibid., to urge that the time has come for us to take a fresh look at the whole problem of retroactivity.
I would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Delaware. It would be less than frank were I not to say that I cast this vote with reluctance, feeling as I do about the unsoundness of Miranda.
* See my dissenting opinion in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 384 U. S. 504 (1966), and my concurring opinion in Orozco v. Texas, 394 U. S. 324, 394 U. S. 327 (1969).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.