Document: 334 U.S. 736 68 S.Ct. 1252 92 L.Ed. 1690 TOWNSENDv.BURKE. No. 542. Argued April 27, 1948. Decided June 14, Mr. Archibald Cox, of Cambridge, Mass., for petitioner. Franklin E. Barr, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion Court. 1 The Commonwealth Pennsylvania holds petitioner prisoner under two indeterminate sentences, not exceeding 10 to 20 years, upon a plea guilty burglary and robbery. On review here State Supreme Court's denial habeas corpus,1 demands discharge by this Court on federal constitutional grounds. 2 Petitioner, while fugitive, was indicted 1, 1945, armed Four his alleged accomplices had been arrested May 18, signed joint confession, fifth 21, also 3, confessed 4. confessed. Petitioner 5, after pleading charges robbery other charges, he sentenced. 3 now alleges violation rights in that, excet ten-minute conversation with wife, held incommunicado period 40 hours between arrest guilty. He does allege that beaten, misused, threatened or intimidated, but only several times interrogated. questioning continuous it any coercive effect. 4 relief because detained as claims, unlawfully is based McNabb v. United States, 318 332, 63 608, 87 819. But rule there applied one against use confessions obtained during illegal detention limited courts, which virtue our supervisory power. In present case no confession used open court dispensed proof crime. Hence, lawfulness factor determining admissibility if were temporarily illegally would have bearing validity confinement guilty, particularly since makes allegation induced plea. 5 relies Haley Ohio, 332 596, 302, reversed state murder conviction believed wrung from an uncounseled 15-year-old boy relays police late at night. Even aside differing facts, provides precedent since, has said, him, pleas resulted allegedly detention. 6 says when brought into plead, represented counsel, offered assignment advised right counsel instructed particularity nature crimes charged. This, says, circumstances deprived sentence reason due process clause Fourteenth Amendment.2 7 Only recently majority reaffirmed Amendment prohibit accepting non-capital defendant. Bute Illinois, 333 640, 763. earlier cases, we indicated, however, disadvantage absence aggravated showing actually being taken advantage of, prejudiced, make out process. 8 proceedings petitioner, following consisted recital officer details others pleaded action court: (Italics supplied). 9 'By (addressing Townsend): 'Q. Townsend, how old are you? A. 29. 11 You before, haven't Yes, sir. 12 1933, larceny automobile. 1934, produce. 1930, bicycle. 1931, entering steal larceny. 1938, Doylestown. Were you tried up there? No, no. Arrested inDoylestown. That Germantown Avenue, wasn't it? robbed paint store. my brother. 13 it, weren't I 14 And this. 1936, rceny, 1350 Ridge Avenue. Is your brother too? 15 1937, receiving stolen goods, saxophone. What did want saxophone? Didn't hope play prison band then, Court: Ten twenty Penitentiary.' 16 trial court's facetiousness casts somewhat somber reflection fairness proceeding learn record charge saxophone dismissed discharged magistrate. savors foul carelessness find recited defendant, found Both 1933 automobile, 1938 entry larceny, adjudged We liberty assume items given such emphasis sentencing court, influence serving. 17 believe before us, evident defendant either overreached prosecution's submission misinformation prejudiced own misreading record. Counsel, present, duty prevent false assumptions perhaps seek remedy elsewhere they persisted. Consequently, conclude lack sentenced basis concerning criminal materially untrue. Such result, whether caused design, inconsistent law, cannot stand. 18 clear reaching result petitioner's unduly severe. within limits set statute, its severity be grounds even direct conviction, much less corpus. It duration renders constitutionally invalid; careless designed pronouncement foundation so extensively false, opportunity correct services provide, lacking 19 Nor do mean mere error resolving question fact necessarily indicate law. Fair prosecutors conscientious judges sometimes misinformed draw inferences conflicting evidence agree. erroneous judgment, scrupulous diligent search truth, may case, might changed sentence, could steps see predicated records, requirement fair withheld prisoner. 21 Reversed. 22 CHIEF JUSTICE, REED, BURTON, dissent. Respondent raised procedural jurisdictional issues Since throughout claim solely deprivation rights, those questions considered therefore here. Herndon Lowry, 301 242, 247, 57 732, 734, 81 1066. frequently provision according defendants heard require appointment noncapital cases. See, example, ex rel. McGlinn Smith, 344 Pa. 41, 24 A.2d 1; Withers Ashe, 350 493, 39 610. See Betts Brady, 316 455, 465, 62 1252, 1257, 86 1595.

Category: 0