Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/352/330/
Timestamp: 2014-04-18 14:07:53
Document Index: 677860073

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3737', '§ 3737', '§ 3737', '§ 1257', '§ 10', '§ 3737', '§ 3737', '§ 3737', '§ 3737', '§ 3737', '§ 1005']

352 U.S. 330 (77 S.Ct. 510, 1 L.Ed.2d 376)
Argued: Nov. 6, 1956.
[HTML] dissent, BLACK, DOUGLAS, BRENNAN
[HTML] Mr. James F. Graham, Zanesville, Ohio, for the appellants.
After a fire occurred on the premises of a corporation owned and operated by appellants, the Fire Marshal started an investigation into the causes of the fire and subpoenaed appellants to appear as witnesses. The Fire Marshal refused to permit appellants' counsel to be present at the proceeding, relying on § 3737.13 of the Ohio Code, which provides that the 'investigation * * * may be private' and that he may 'exclude from the place where (the) investigation is held all persons other than those required to be present * * *.'
Appellants declined to be sworn and to testify without the immediate presence of their counsel, who had accompanied them to the hearing. Their refusal was treated as a violation of § 3737.12, which provides that 'No witness shall refuse to be sworn or refuse to testify * * *.' Section 3737.99(A) provides that 'Whoever violates section 3737.12 * * * may be summarily punished, by the officer concerned, by * * * commitment to the county jail until such person is willing to comply with the order of such officer.' The Fire Marshal accordingly committed appellants to the county jail until such time as they should be willing to testify.
We postponed further consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 351 U.S. 903, 76 S.Ct. 693, 100 L.Ed. 1440. The Ohio Supreme Court construed § 3737.13 to authorize the Fire Marshal to exclude appellants' counsel from the proceeding. Since appellants' attack is on the constitutionality of that section, we have jurisdiction on appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(2).
It is clear that a defendant in a state criminal trial has an unqualified right, under the Due Process Clause, to be heard through his own counsel. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3, 75 S.Ct. 1, 99 L.Ed. 4. Prosecution of an individual differs widely from administrative investigation of incidents damaging to the economy or dangerous to the public. The proceeding before the Fire Marshal was not a criminal trial, nor was it an administrative proceeding that would in any way adjudicate appellants' responsibilities for the fire. It was a proceeding solely to elicit facts relating to the causes and circumstances of the fire. The Fire Marshal's duty was to 'determine whether the fire was the result of carelessness or design,' and to arrest any person against whom there was sufficient evidence on which to base a charge of arson.
The fact that appellants were under a legal duty to speak and that their testimony might provide a basis for criminal charges against them does not mean that they had a constitutional right to the assistance of their counsel. Appellants here are witnesses from whom information was sought as to the cause of the fire. A witness before a grand jury cannot insist, as a matter of constitutional right, on being represented by his counsel,
U.S.Const., Amend. V.; Ohio Const., Art. I, § 10. See Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 52, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 1675, 91 L.Ed. 1903. This is a privilege available in investigations as well as in prosecutions. See In re Groban, 164 Ohio St. 26, 28, 128 N.E.2d 106, 108, and 99 Ohio App. 512, 515, 135 N.E.2d 477, 480; McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed. 158; Adams v. State of Maryland, 347 U.S. 179, 74 S.Ct. 442, 98 L.Ed. 608. We have no doubt that the privilege is available in Ohio against prosecutions as well as convictions reasonably feared. Cf. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 431, 76 S.Ct. 497, 502, 100 L.Ed. 511. The mere fact that suspicion may be entertained of such a witness, as appellants believed existed here, though without allegation of facts to support such a belief, does not bar the taking of testimony in a private investigatory proceeding.
represents a determination by the Ohio Legislature that investigations conducted in private may be the most effective method of bringing to light facts concerning the origins of fires, and, in the long run, of reducing injuries and losses from fires caused by negligence or by design. We cannot say that this determination is unreasonable. The presence of advisors to witnesses might easily so far encumber an investigatory proceeding as to make it unworkable or unwieldy. And with so weighty a public interest as fire prevention to protect, we cannot hold that the balance has been set in such a way as to be contrary to 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice.' Hebert v. State of Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 47 S.Ct. 103, 104, 71 L.Ed. 270. That is the test to measure the validity of a state statute under the Due Process Clause.
Appellants urge, however, that the Fire Marshal's power to exclude counsel under § 3737.13 must be considered in the light of his power of summary punishment under § 3737.99(A), and they would have us hold that, so considered, his power to exclude counsel was unconstitutional. We held in In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682, that a witness before a one-man grand jury, a judge, could not constitutionally be punished summarily for contempt of the grand jury without being allowed to be represented by his counsel. We see no relation between the premise that appellants could not be punished without representation by counsel and the conclusion that they could not be questioned without such representation. Section 3737.13 may contain a constitutional flaw if it should be construed to authorize the exclusion of counsel while the Fire Marshal determines that a witness has violated § 3737.12 and orders the witness committed. The sole assertion of a constitutional violation that appellants relied upon before the Ohio Supreme Court and the only one open on the record herethe authorization in § 3737.13 of the exclusion of counsel while a witness testifiesis not well founded. We hold that appellants had no constitutional right to be assisted by their counsel in giving testimony at the investigatory proceeding conducted by the Fire Marshal, and that § 3737.13, insofar as it authorizes the exclusion of counsel while a witness testifies, is not repugnant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
To whatever extent history may confirm Lord Acton's dictum that power tends to corrupt, such a doctrine of fear can hardly serve as a test, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, of a particular exercise of a State's legislative power. And so, the constitutionality of a particular statute, expressive of a State's view of desirable policy for dealing with one of the rudimentary concerns of societythe prevention of fires and the ascertainment of their causesand directed towards a particular situation, cannot be determined by deriving a troupe of hobgoblins from the assumption that such a particularized exercise of power would justify an unlimited, abusive exercise of power.
I believe that it violates the protections guaranteed every person by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a state to compel a person to appear alone before any law-enforcement officer and give testimony in secret against his will. Under the reasoning of the majority every state and federal law-enforcement officer in this country could constitutionally be given power to conduct such secret compulsory examinations. This would be a complete departure from our traditional methods of law enforcement and would go a long way toward placing 'the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.'
By sanctioning the Ohio statutes involved here the majority disregards 'this nation's historic distrust of secret proceedings'
and decides contrary to the general principle laid down by this Court in one of its landmark decisions that an accused '* * * requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.'
An 'Arson Bureau' is established in the Fire Marshal's office and it is provided with a staff charged with the duty of investigating fires to determine if a crime has been committed. The Fire Marshal and his deputy in charge of the 'Arson Bureau' are expressly made '* * * responsible * * * for the prosecution of persons believed to be guilty of arson or a similar crime.'
The statutory provisions show that the Fire Marshal and his deputies are given the ordinary duties of policemen with respect to 'arson and similar crimes.'
Appellants instituted this action for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court of Ohio contending that their imprisonment would be contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected this contention and affirmed the judgments of lower state courts refusing to issue the writ. This Court upholds the decision below, but even on the narrow grounds upon which it chooses to decide the case I think that its holding is erroneous and constitutes a very dangerous precedent.
The witness has no effective way to challenge his interrogator's testimony as to what was said and done at the secret inquisition. The officer's version frequently may reflect an inaccurate understanding of an accused's statements or, on occasion, may be deliberately distorted or falsified. While the accused may protest against these misrepresentations, his protestations will normally be in vain. This is particularly true when the officer is accompanied by several of his assistants and they all vouch for his story.
The presence of legal counsel or any person who is not an executive officer bent on enforcing the law provides still another protection to the witness. Behind closed doors he can be coerced, tricked or confused by officers into making statements which may be untrue or may hide the truth by creating misleading impressions. While the witness is in the custody of the interrogators, as a practical matter, he is subject to their uncontrolled will. Here it should be pointed out that the Ohio law places no restrictions on where the interrogations can be held or their duration. Exemplifying the abuses which may occur in secret proceedings, this Court has repeatedly had before it cases where confessions have been obtained from suspects by coercive interrogation in secret.
While the circumstances in each of these cases have varied, in all of them, as well as in many others, the common element has been the suspect's interrogation by officers while he was held incommunicado without the presence of his counsel, his friends or relatives, or the public. As was said in a concurring opinion in Haley v. State of Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, at page 605, 68 S.Ct. 302, at page 306, 92 L.Ed. 224: 'An impressive series of cases in this and other courts admonishes of the temptations to abuse of police endeavors to secure confessions from suspects, through protracted questioning carried on in secrecy, with the inevitable disquietude and fears police interrogations naturally engender in individuals questioned while held incommunicado, without the aid of counsel and unprotected by the safeguards of a judicial inquiry.'
Nothing would be better calculated to prevent misuse of official power in dealing with a witness or suspect than the scrutiny of his lawyer or friends or even of disinterested bystanders.
the accused's efforts to show that the actual events were not as pictured by the interrogating officers would normally be futile if he could call on no one to corroborate his testimony. And when a witness is deprived of the advice of counsel he may be completely unaware that his conduct has crossed the obscure boundary and become contemptuous. Moreover, executive officers will be somewhat more chary in exercising the dangerous contempt power if their actions are subject to external scrutiny.
It is said that a witness can protect himself against some of the many abuses possible in a secret interrogation by asserting the privilege against self-incrimination. But this proposition collapses under anything more than the most superficial consideration. The average witness has little if any idea when or how to raise any of his constitutional privileges. There is no requirement in the Ohio statutes that the fire-prevention officers must inform the witness that he is privileged not to incriminate himself. And in view of the intricate possibilities of waiver which surround the privilege he may easily unwittingly waive it.
If the witness is coerced or misled by his interrogators he may not dare to raise the privilege. Undoubtedly he will be made aware that hanging over his head at all times is the officer's power to punish him for contempta power whose limitations the witness will not understand. Furthermore, the Fire Marshal or his deputies would seldom be competent to decide if the privilege has been properly claimed or, even if they wish, to instruct the witness how to make correct use of it.
They bring into the grand jury room the experience, knowledge and viewpoint of all sections of the community. They have no axes to grind and are not charged personally with the administration of the law. No one of them is a prosecuting attorney or law-enforcement officer ferreting out crime. It would be very difficult for officers of the state seriously to abuse or deceive a witness in the presence of the grand jury. Similarly the presence of the jurors offers a substantial safeguard against for officers' misrepresentation, unintentional or otherwise, of the witness's statements and conduct before the grand jury. The witness can call on the grand jurors if need be for their normally unbiased testimony as to what occurred before them.
'Any person compelled to appear in person before any agency or representative thereof shall be accorded the right to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or, if permitted by the agency, by other qualified representative.'
'By enacting this bill, the Congressexpressing the will of the peoplewill be laying down for the guidance of all branches of the Government and all private interests in the country a policy respecting the minimum requirements of fair administrative procedure.'
'The bill is an outline of minimum essential rights and procedures.'
In any event, the investigations authorized by the Ohio statutes are far more than mere administrative inquiries for securing information useful generally in the prevention of fires. Rather, these statutes command action with a view toward the apprehension and prosecution of persons believed guilty of certain crimes. The Marshal or his deputies may compel a person suspected of arson or a similar offenseas appellants apparently wereto appear and give testimony under oath. And as previously indicated any statement elicited from such person may be used as evidence against him. Once testimony has been taken from a suspect the duties of the Marshal and his deputies are not at an end. They must arrest the witness if they believe that the evidence is sufficient to charge him with certain crimes. All testimony taken from him and all other evidence must be turned over to the prosecuting attorney. The Fire Marshal and his deputy in charge of the 'Arson Bureau' are specifically made '* * * responsible * * * for the prosecution of persons believed to be guilty of arson or a similar crime.' The foregoing clearly demonstrates that the Fire Marshal's interrogation is, and apparently was intended to be, an important and integral part in the prosecution of the persons for arson or a similar crime.
The rights of a persons who is examined in connection with such crimes should not be destroyed merely because the inquiry is given the euphonious label 'administrative.'
Finally it is argued that the Fire Marshal and his deputies should have the right to exclude counsel and such other persons as they choose so that their 'investigatory proceedings' will not be 'unduly encumbered.' From all that appears the primary manner in which the presence of counsel or the public would 'encumber' the interrogation would be by protecting the legitimate rights of the witness.
It is undeniable that law-enforcement officers could rack up more convictions if they were not 'hampered' by the defendant's counsel or the presence of others who might report to the public the manner in which people were being convicted.
But the procedural safeguards deemed essential for due process have been imposed deliberately with full knowledge that they will occasionally impede the conviction of persons suspected of crime.
The majority states that 'with so weighty a public interest as fire prevention to protect,' they cannot hold that it violates the Due Process Clause to compel a witness to testify at a secret proceeding. But is the public's interest in fire prevention so weighty that it requires denying the person interrogated the basic procedural safeguards essential to justice? Suppose that Ohio authorized the Chief of State Police and his deputies to inquire into the causes and circumstances of crime generally and gave them power to compel witnesses or persons suspected of crime to appear and give testimony in secret. Since the public's interest in crime prevention is at least as great as its interest in fire prevention, the reasoning used in the majority's opinion would lead to the approval of such means of 'law enforcement.' In fact, the opinion could readily be applied to sanction a grant of similar power to every state trooper, policeman, sheriff, marshal, constable, FBI agent, prosecuting attorney, immigration official,
I believe that the majority opinion offers a completely novel and extremely dangerous precedentone that could be used to destroy a society of liberty under law and to establish in its place authoritarian government.
'Ours is the accusatorial as opposed to the inquisitorial system. Such has been the characteristic of Anglo-American criminal justice since it freed itself from practices borrowed by the Star Chamber from the Continent whereby an accused was interrogated in secret for hours on end. * * * Under our system society carries the burden of proving its charge against the accused not out of his own mouth. It must establish its case, not by interrogation of the accused even under judicial safeguards, but by evidence independently secured through skillful investigation.'
They are the breeding place for arbitrary misuse of official power. They are often the beginning of tyranny as well as indispensable instruments for its survival. Modern as well as ancient history bears witness that both innocent and guilty have been seized by officers of the state and whisked away for secret interrogation or worse until the groundwork has been securely laid for their inevitable conviction. While the labels applied to this practice have frequently changed, the central idea wherever and whenever carried out remains unchangingextraction of 'statements' by one means or another from an individual by officers of the state while he is held incommunicado. I reiterate my belief that it violates the Due Process Clause to compel a person to answer questions at a secret interrogation where he is denied legal assistance and where he is subject to the uncontrolled and invisible exercise of power by government officials. Such procedures are a grave threat to the liberties of a free people.
Bowles v. Baer, 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 787; United States v. Levine, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 651. Note, Rights of Witnesses in Administrative Investigations, 54 Harv.L.Rev. 1214, 12161217.
Cf. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 76 S.Ct. 497, 100 L.Ed. 511; Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118; Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137, 150, 69 S.Ct. 1000, 1007, 93 L.Ed. 1264; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 6667, 26 S.Ct. 370, 375376, 50 L.Ed. 652.
See National Fire Protection Association Handbook of Fire Protection (10th ed. 1948) 4145; Annual Report of the Division of (Ohio) State Fire Marshal for 1955.
This has been recognized from ancient times. As said in Matthew 18:1516:
'In case of material incorrectness, whether by design or inadvertence,so many auditors present * * * any or each of whom may eventually be capable of indicating, in the character of a witness, the existence of the error, and the tenor (or at least the purport) of the alteration requisite for the correction of it.' 1 Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence (1827), 523.
This was recognized in Ex parte Sullivan, D.C., 107 F.Supp. 514, 517. There two persons suspected of crime had been examined by law-enforcement officers in secret without the presence of counsel and had been tricked into making statements which were instrumental in their conviction. At pages 517518, the district judge observed:
All of the cases cited by the majority as authority for the practice before grand juries apparently involved a traditional grand jury. It has been suggested that a state can constitutionally provide for grand juries composed of less than 12 persons. See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 139, 140, 75 S.Ct. 623, 626, 627, 99 L.Ed. 942 (dissenting opinion); In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 283, 283284, 68 S.Ct. 499, 512, 512513, 92 L.Ed. 682 (dissenting opinion). Even if this suggestion is correct it certainly does not follow that a state can designate one or more of its law-enforcement officers as a grand jury and constitutionally give them power to compel witnesses to appear and give testimony in secret without the pressence of counsel. This point was expressly not considered in In re Oliver, supra, 333 U.S. at page 265, 68 S.Ct. at page 503. Such power in the hands of law-enforcement officers is equally obnoxious to due process whether they are styled as a grand jury, as fire-prevention officers or simply as policemen.
5 U.S.C. 1005(a), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1005(a).
'In criminal procedure as we see it applied, the accused is still an inert object at the mercy of the inquisitor's violence. * * * Held incommunicado during the period of questioning, the accused is alone with his examiners, without aid of counsel; torture, although formally abolished, has returned under new guises more scientific but nonetheless cruel: the third degree, endless hours of incessant questioning, truth serum.' Calamandrei, Procedure and Democracy (Adams transl. 1956), 9394, 102103.