Opinion ID: 1974181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Law of the Cases

Text: Mefford's arrest, on the record, was illegal. The State argues that Corporal Seekford had probable cause, as a result of his investigation of the case and from what the County police told him, to believe Mefford had committed the felonies at Route 40 and Joppa. It well may be that he had, but the record shows no more than that he considered Mefford a particular suspect, to use his words. Suspicion, although strong, is not the equivalent of probable cause. Braxton v. State, 234 Md. 1, 4. Blackburn's arrest, on the other hand, was legal for, after Mefford had confessed to Seekford and had given his confession support by turning over the murder weapon, Seekford from these facts and his prior knowledge of the case had probable cause to believe that Blackburn was Mefford's confederate, as the latter claimed, and the right to return that night to Blackburn's home and arrest him. Blackburn has no ground to urge, therefore, as Mefford has, that his confession was involuntary as a matter of law, and inadmissible, simply because it was given while he was in custody after an illegal arrest under the doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 9 L.Ed.2d 441. The contention will not presently aid Mefford, for this Court has held that Wong Sun was not intended to, and does not, control prosecutions in State courts and that the rule of the Supreme Court in such cases ( Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037) and that of Maryland remains that the critical test of admissibility of a confession is whether, under all circumstances, it was, in actuality, voluntary. Prescoe v. State, 231 Md. 486; Stewart v. State, 232 Md. 318; Peal v. State, 232 Md. 329; Bean v. State, 234 Md. 432. We think the circumstances attending the confessions of Mefford and Blackburn do not require a reversal of the trial judges' findings that they were voluntary. Mefford had been in custody some four days when he first confessed, but had been allowed complete rest from Saturday night to Monday morning, when he was again arrested after his release by the County police. The finding of the trial court that the County police confinement did not break down Mefford's will or induce his later confession is supported by the testimony in the case. There was a significant break in the confinement complained of, and in his attitude towards it, for, as he himself frankly said, he was well treated by the State police and had no reason ever to believe while in their custody that such treatment would not continue whether or not he confessed. What we said in O'Connor v. State, 234 Md. 459, 461, where the prisoner was taken from the custody of the New Jersey police by Maryland officers and confessed to the latter, and the defense was that the confession was involuntary because of mistreatment in New Jersey, is apposite here: Any connection between the alleged mistreatment by the New Jersey police and his statements to the Maryland police was effectively broken, as the trial court found. There was no unduly long questioning, no persistent hammering by relays of officers, no physical mistreatment, no deprivation of rest or food in either Mefford's or Blackburn's case. Neither was held incommunicado. Mefford was taken to see his wife the night of the day the State police arrested him, and she was brought to see him the next morning. Blackburn's wife was told where he was when the State trooper went to see her to get clothing, and she was brought to see him. The transfers of the prisoners from station to station were all made for legitimate purposes. The failure to have preliminary hearings is not of material significance on the matter of the voluntariness of the confessions. O'Connor v. State, supra ; Shorey v. State, 227 Md. 385; Hardesty v. State, 223 Md. 559. The remaining question arises from the complaint of Mefford and Blackburn, each that he was denied counsel and that this made his confession involuntary. Mefford freely concedes that he made no request for counsel while he was in the custody of the State police. Blackburn never asked for counsel except as a part of a request that he be immediately charged (and this the trial judges could have concluded before he agreed to take the lie detector test on his conditions). Neither claims that ever was he told or led to believe he could have a lawyer only after he confessed. Prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 10 L.Ed.2d 513, and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 32 U.S.L. Week 4605, there could have been no doubt that the denial of counsel between the time of arrest and the time of confession would not, of itself, have affronted due process as guaranteed by the federal constitution, since it would not necessarily have indicated an overborne or compelled will and, so, a failure to meet the controlling test of voluntariness in fact. The dissenting opinion of the fourmember minority in Haynes and the cases of Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448, Cicenia v. LeGay, 357 U.S. 504, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523, and Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 86 L.Ed. 166, made this clear. This Court often has so held. Miller v. State, 231 Md. 158; Jones v. State, 229 Md. 165; Bagley v. State, 232 Md. 86; Bean v. State, supra . When the present case was tried below and when it was argued before us, the Supreme Court had not yet decided Escobedo, and both Mefford and Blackburn relied heavily on Haynes, which we think plainly is distinguishable on the facts and does not go nearly as far in its holdings as both appellants claim it goes. In Haynes the four members of the Supreme Court who, in Crooker, Cicenia, Ashdown v. Utah, 357 U.S. 426, 431, 2 L.Ed.2d 1443 (dissenting opinions), and Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 324, 326, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265, and Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 637, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037, supra (concurring opinions) were in the minority in their view that denial of request for counsel by a suspect in custody is a denial of the Assistance of Counsel guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States and that a confession obtained after such a denial cannot be used as evidence against the suspect. In Haynes they did not persuade a fifth member of the Court to base the decision of the Court on that new flat proposition. See DeToro v. Pepersack (C.A. 4), 332 F.2d 341. Rather, the Supreme Court held that where there was no real contradiction of the essentials of the prisoner's story that he repeatedly made specific requests for permission to call an attorney and his wife over a sixteen-hour period, during which he was held incommunicado (as he was for some five days after he confessed) and was as often told by the police he could make the calls only after he confessed (and, as he justifiably understood it, continue to be held incommuncado until he did), the prisoner, under the totality of the attending circumstances had been coerced and his will overborne so that the admission of his confession would violate his right to due process of law under the rules established by prior cases of the Supreme Court. Crooker, Cicenia and Lisenba were not in terms, or, as we see it, by implication, overruled and neither was the Supreme Court's holdings, reiterated in Culombe that in State court proceedings the real test of the right of the State to use a confession against an accused remains voluntariness in actuality of the confession. [1] In the case before us there was contradiction  believable, persuasive contradiction  by the State of every significant claim of the prisoners that coercion or inducement or improper or harsh treatment had brought forth or significantly induced the confessions. There was no prolonged detention incommunicado. There was no threat, express or implied, that there would be incarceration, incommunicado or otherwise, until a confession was forthcoming. The requests of the prisoners, including those to see their respective wives, were granted. No question of the right of one charged with crime to retain and have the services of counsel of his own choosing under Article 21 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution has been raised and that article would not seem to have been of significance under the facts of the cases before us. Audler v. Kriss, 197 Md. 362; Edwardsen v. State, 220 Md. 82. We turn to consideration of whether the holding of the Supreme Court in Escobedo requires rejection of the confessions of Mefford and Blackburn. In Escobedo, the suspect was twenty-two years old and had had no previous experience with the police. He had been questioned by the police in regard to a murder and then released. He retained and was advised by a lawyer. A few days later he was again taken into custody and questioned intensively. He repeatedly asked to see his retained lawyer and was as often refused. His lawyer, who had heard that his client had been again arrested went to the police station and made earnest, repeated and persistent efforts to see his client but was consistently rebuffed by various police officials. At one point Escobedo and his lawyer saw each other through an open door (and the lawyer made a sign which the client interpreted as not to talk), but the door was quickly shut by the police and the lawyer was ushered away. The Supreme Court held that where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied `the Assistance of Counsel' in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as `made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment,' Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S., at 342, and that no statement elicited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial. (Emphasis supplied.) (p. 4608 of 32 U.S.L. Week). The Court, without doubt, limited its holding to the facts of the case. The first sentence of the opinion said so: The critical question in this case is whether, under the circumstances, the refusal by the police to honor petitioner's request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation constitutes a denial of `the Assistance of Counsel' in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution   . (Emphasis added.) The next to the last sentence of the opinion, in defining the holding of the case, precisely says: We hold only that when the process shifts from investigatory to accusatory  when its focus is on the accused and its purpose is to elicit a confession  our adversary system begins to operate, and under the circumstances here, the accused must be permitted to consult with his lawyer. (Emphasis supplied.) Further, the Court did not overrule Crooker and Cicenia. It said at p. 4608:  Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, does not compel a contrary result, and took two long paragraphs to explain these cases and distinguish them on the facts. The opinion went no further than to say: In any event, to the extent that Cicenia or Crooker may be inconsistent with the principles announced today, they are not to be regarded as controlling. (p. 4609) (Emphasis added.) The facts in the cases now before us are not the facts on which the Supreme Court acted and to which it limited its holding in Escobedo. Mefford did not ever ask the State police, to whom he freely confessed, for a lawyer or even give a hint to them that he wanted to consult one. He was never denied the assistance of counsel. He says he volunteered to give a written statement if he saw his wife first. His statement recites that he was told of his right to remain silent and he does not claim he was not so advised. Blackburn did not ask for the assistance of counsel in connection with the questioning of the police, he asked them to charge him so he could then be provided a lawyer. Further, after he made his qualified request to Lieutenant Hanley, the lieutenant urged him to take a lie detector test and Blackburn proposed the conditions of a bed with a mattress, twenty-four hours rest, and three good meals, and Hanley agreed, and made good. Blackburn thereafter really made no request for counsel. In addition, the testimony is explicit that Blackburn was fully and effectively advised by Hanley (as he was later by Sergeant Stacey) of his constitutional right either to talk or, without any prejudice, to remain silent (it was after this he agreed to take the lie detector test on his conditions) and, therefore, one of the essentials on which the Escobedo holding was based (and on which the Supreme Court distinguished Crooker ) is lacking here because the police supplied to Blackburn the advice as to his rights to remain silent, which a lawyer would have given him, and it was after this repeated advice that he told his story, upon confrontation at his own request by his wife and by Mefford. We think Escobedo does not compel a reversal in the present cases and we find no unfairness in the totality of the circumstances attendant upon the making of the confessions of Mefford or the confession of Blackburn, and are persuaded that there was no unfairness or legal or constitutional error in the admission against Mefford of his confessions or in the admission against Blackburn of his confession. Judgment in the case of Frederick Morris Mefford affirmed. Judgment in the case of Earl LeRoy Blackburn affirmed. BRUNE, C.J., and PRESCOTT, J., dissent.