Opinion ID: 1798836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Confession Procedure.

Text: Goodchild maintains that his statements and confessions were involuntarily given due to harassment on the part of law-enforcement officers while he was tired, undernourished, and physically and psychologically ill. At the trial the court admitted in evidence all seven confessions and statements. The court followed the established Wisconsin procedure for determining the voluntariness of the confessions. Under this procedure [18] the trial court first passes on the admissibility of the confessions. If clearly involuntary, the confession is not allowed into evidence. If there is a doubt as to its voluntariness, this issue is submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions. A similar procedure that had been followed in New York [19] was recently struck down by the United States supreme court in Jackson v. Denno , [20] as being violative of due process. Jackson had confessed to a murder and, after disputed evidence had been received as to the voluntariness of that confession, under the established New York procedure, the defendant was convicted. After losing his appeals, [21] Jackson sought habeas corpus in the federal district court, asserting that his conviction was founded on a confession not properly determined to be voluntary. The writ was there denied [22] and the court of appeals affirmed. [23] The supreme court reversed, holding: In our view, the New York procedure employed in this case did not afford a reliable determination of the voluntariness of the confession offered in evidence at the trial, did not adequately protect Jackson's right to be free of a conviction based upon a coerced confession and therefore cannot withstand constitutional attack under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [24] Goodchild contends his convictions for murder were founded on confessions that were not properly determined to be voluntary and under a procedure that is voided by Jackson v. Denno . Our consideration must first be directed to whether this issue should be determined by our court bearing in mind that Goodchild is imprisoned under criminal judgments that have been finalized and to date there has been no precise ruling by the United States supreme court that Jackson v. Denno is retroactive. In the instant case Goodchild is deprived of any benefit of the effects of Jackson v. Denno invalidating the Wisconsin procedure for determining voluntariness because, as will be detailed below, for strategic reasons no objection was made and, therefore, under the holding in the more recent case of Henry v. Mississippi [25] Goodchild waived any constitutional defect that there may have been in that procedure. We reserve any ruling on whether Jackson v. Denno is retroactive. Nevertheless, we owe a duty to the trial courts, prosecuting attorneys, the defense bar, and to the citizenry of Wisconsin, to speak clearly on the effect of Jackson v. Denno in Wisconsin. The rationale adopted by the United States supreme court in Jackson v. Denno in voiding the New York procedure is spelled out in that opinion. The court states: Under the New York procedure, the evidence given the jury inevitably injects irrelevant and impermissible considerations of truthfulness of the confession into the assessment of voluntariness. Indeed the jury is told to determine the truthfulness of the confession in assessing its probative value. As a consequence, it cannot be assumed, as the Stein Court assumed, that the jury reliably found the facts against the accused. This unsound assumption undermines Stein's authority as a precedent and its view on the constitutionality of the New York procedure. The admixture of reliability and voluntariness in the considerations of the jury would itself entitle a defendant to further proceedings in any case in which the essential facts are disputed, for we cannot determine how the jury resolved these issues and will not assume that they were reliably and properly resolved against the accused. And it is only a reliable determination on the voluntariness issue which satisfies the constitutional rights of the defendant and which would permit the jury to consider the confession in adjudicating guilt or innocence. But we do not rest on this ground alone, for the other alternative hypothesized in Stein that the jury found the confession involuntary and disregarded itis equally unacceptable. Under the New York procedure, the fact of a defendant's confession is solidly implanted in the jury's mind, for it has not only heard the confession, but it has been instructed to consider and judge its voluntariness and is in position to assess whether it is true or false. If it finds the confession involuntary, does the juryindeed, can itthen disregard the confession in accordance with its instructions? If there are lingering doubts about the sufficiency of the other evidence, does the jury unconsciously lay them to rest by resort to the confession? Will uncertainty about the sufficiency of the other evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt actually result in acquittal when the jury knows the defendant has given a truthful confession? It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a confession which a jury has found to be involuntary has nevertheless influenced the verdict or that its finding of voluntariness, if this is the course it took, was affected by the other evidence showing the confession was true. But the New York procedure poses substantial threats to a defendant's constitutional rights to have an involuntary confession entirely disregarded and to have the coercion issue fairly and reliably determined. These hazards we cannot ignore. As reflected in the cases in this Court, police conduct requiring exclusion of a confession has evolved from acts of clear physical brutality to more refined and subtle methods of overcoming a defendant's will. `[T]his Court has recognized that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. A number of cases have demonstrated, if demonstration were needed, that the efficiency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be matched, given the proper subject, by more sophisticated modes of persuasion.' Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199, 206. Expanded concepts of fairness in obtaining confessions have been accompanied by a correspondingly greater complexity in determining whether an accused's will has been overbornefacts are frequently disputed, questions of credibility are often crucial, and inferences to be drawn from established facts are often determinative. The overall determination of the voluntariness of a confession has thus become an exceedingly sensitive task, one that requires facing the issue squarely, in illuminating isolation and unbeclouded by other issues and the effect of extraneous but prejudicial evidence. See Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613; United States v. Carignan, 342 U. S. 36; Smith v. United States, 348 U. S. 147. Where pure factual considerations are an important ingredient, which is true in the usual case, appellate review in this Court is, as a practical matter, an inadequate substitute for a full and reliable determination of the voluntariness issue in the trial court and the trial court's determination, pro tanto, takes on an increasing finality. The procedures used in the trial court to arrive at its conclusions on the coercion issue progressively take on added significance as the actual measure of the protection afforded a defendant under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the use of involuntary confessions. These procedures must, therefore, be fully adequate to insure a reliable and clear-cut determination of the voluntariness of the confession, including the resolution of disputed facts upon which the voluntariness issue may depend. In our view, the New York procedure falls short of satisfying these constitutional requirements. Stein v. New York is overruled. [26] If Stein is overruled by Jackson, so too must be the Wisconsin version of the New York rule as set forth in Pollack and Bronston. That is our ruling. Since the Wisconsin procedure heretofore observed is unconstitutional, we must adopt in its place either the Massachusetts or the orthodox rule for determining the voluntariness of confessions, both of which rules were approved in Jackson. [27] The differences between the rules are considered in detail in both the majority and minority opinions in Jackson together with their voluminous footnotes, references, and appendices. In essence the orthodox rule provides for a separate hearing before the trial judge alone on the issue of voluntariness with a determination by him that is final. If the trial judge finds on a proper record that the confession is involuntary, that is the end of the matter and the jury never considers the confession. If the judge determines that the confession was voluntarily made, the confession is admitted and the jury consideration is limited to its weight and credibility. In essence this rule is but an extension of the present procedure for establishing the admissibility of evidence challenged by a motion to suppress. The Massachusetts rule differs in that if the trial judge decides that the confession was voluntary the jury considers the admitted confession and by its own deliberations, under instructions, may nevertheless find it to have been involuntarily given, and thus disregard it completely. Since Jackson, both New York [28] and Oregon [29] have adopted the Massachusetts procedure. One reason given by the New York court is that the New York state constitution commands a jury trial on the issue of voluntariness. Since the jury-trial provision in the New York constitution is stated in general terms, [30] and does not in express terms require a jury trial on the issue of voluntariness, the New York holding must be the court's own interpretation of the New York constitution. This is because the United States constitution contains a similar general-trial-by-jury requirement, [31] and in Jackson the court ruled that a procedure whereby the jury does not pass on the voluntariness issue i.e., the orthodox ruleis proper. Wisconsin also has a general jury provision. [32] We reject the New York rationale. We prefer the Jackson rationale and result. Moreover, the determination of whether a confession is voluntary in substance is a ruling on the admissibility of evidence and there is no requirement to have a jury trial on such rulings. There is no constitutional provision requiring the adoption of the Massachusetts procedure in Wisconsin. In adopting the orthodox rule in Michigan, their supreme court has criticized the Massachusetts approach: We think the latter rule contains a contradiction in terms. If we arrogate to the trial judge the right to adjudicate voluntariness, even though that question involves issues of fact, we find no basis in logic in submitting the same question over again to the jury to second-guess him. We believe their determination should be limited to truthfulness, i.e., weight and credibility. [33] Scholars favor the orthodox rule to assure the defendant a clean-cut adjudication of voluntariness and in order to prevent the jury from merging that issue into the issue of guilt. [34] It appears that a consensus of the board of criminal court judges advocates the orthodox view. We adopt for the state of Wisconsin the orthodox procedure described in the Jackson v. Denno opinion under which the judge himself solely and finally determines the voluntariness of the confession, . . . [35] In the interest of better administration of criminal justice we suggest that wherever practicable the prosecutor should within a reasonable time before trial notify the defense as to whether any alleged confession or admission will be offered in evidence at the trial. We also suggest, in cases where such notice is given by the prosecution, that the defense, if it intends to attack the confession or admission as involuntary, notify the prosecutor of a desire by the defense for a special determination on such issue. [35a] At the hearing on the issue, the trial judge sitting alone shall make a determination upon a proper record upon the issue of voluntariness. The state shall have the burden of proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. At this hearing the defendant may take the stand and testify for the limited purpose of making a record of his version of the facts and circumstances under which the confession was obtained. [36] By so doing, the defendant does not waive his right to decline to take the stand in his own defense on the trial in chief. Neither does he waive any of the other rights stemming from his choice not to testify. Following the hearing the trial judge shall make his determination as to the voluntariness of the confession which determination is upon a question of constitutional fact and shall be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. [37] If the confession is held voluntary and admitted, the jury's consideration of that confession and surrounding circumstances shall proceed in accordance with the orthodox procedure.