Document: 417 U.S. 433 94 S.Ct. 2357 41 L.Ed.2d 182 State of MICHIGAN, Petitioner,v.Thomas W. TUCKER. No. 73—482. Argued March 20, 1974. Decided June 10, Syllabus Respondent, who had been arrested for rape, was questioned by police. Before the commencement interrogation (which antedated this Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694), respondent advised his right to remain silent and counsel (but not appointment if he indigent). Respondent related an alibi that with a friend (Henderson), at time crime, but police later elicited from Henderson information tending incriminate respondent. trial, made motion exclude Henderson's expected testimony because revealed identity without having received full warnings mandated intervening decision. The denied, testified, convicted. Following affirmance on appeal, sought habeas corpus relief, which District Court granted, finding inadmissible violation. Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. conduct case, though failing afford measure procedural safeguards set forth Miranda, did deprive privilege against self-incrimination since record clearly shows respondent's statements during were involuntary or result potential legal sanctions. Pp. 446 452. 2. evidence derived admissible. 446—452. (a) police's pre-Miranda failure advise appointed under all circumstances case involved no bad faith would justify recourse exclusionary rule is aimed deterring willful negligent deprivation accused's rights. 446—448. (b) bearing upon reliability testimony, subjected normal testing process adversary trial. 448—449. (c) use witness discovered as these does violate any requirements Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments relating system. 449—450. 480 F.2d 927, reversed. L. Brooks Patterson, petitioner. Edward R. Korman, United States, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Kenneth M. Mogill, Detroit, Mich., respondent, pro hac vice, Roman S. Gribbs, Detroit Bar Association, Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 This presents question whether state court trial rape must be excluded simply learned questioning when custody suspect, him indigent. took place before 694 (1966), convicted, afterwards. Under holding Johnson New Jersey, 719, 1772, 882 therefore, applicable case. States Eastern Michigan reviewed claim petition held excluded.1 affirmed.2 2 * On morning April 19, 1966, 43-year-old woman Pontiac, found her home coworker, Luther White, serious condition. At she tied, gagged, partially disrobed, both raped severely beaten. She unable tell White anything about assault still remains recollect what happened. 3 While attempting get medical help victim call police, observed dog inside house. apparently attracted White's attention knew own herself. Later, talking officers, second time, followed Neighbors further connected 4 then brought station questioning. Prior actual asked crime arrested, wanted attorney, understood constitutional rights.3 replied understand want rights.4 might make could used date court.5 however, furnished free charge pay such services himself. 5 activities night assault. general period issue first one Robert home, alone, asleep. confirm story contacting Henderson, served discredit rather than bolster account. acknowledged said left relatively early time. Furthermore, told saw following day scratches face—'asked got hold wild something.'6 answered: '(S)omething like that.'7 Then, said, 'who it was,'8 said: '(S)ome lived next block over,'9 adding: 'She widow woman' words effect.10 6 These events occurred prior handed down its supra, warnings. Although taken excluded, judge denied testimony. therefore testified convicted sentenced 20 40 years' imprisonment. His conviction affirmed Appeals11 Supreme Court.12 7 relief Federal That court, noting stipulated only through answers, 'reluctantly' concluded admitted.13 Application necessary, reasoned, protect Fifth Amendment compulsory self-incrimination. granted writ unless petitioner retried within 90 days. Sixth Circuit We certiorari, 414 1062, 568, 38 467 (1973), now reverse. II 8 sole complaint failed given himself, not, now, base arguments Amendments. Nor counsel, such, considered persuasive either federal below. do have situation presented Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 84 1758, 12 977 (1964), where policemen interrogating suspect refused repeated requests see lawyer present station. As we noted previously, broadly extended beyond facts particular See U.S., 733—734, S.Ct., 1780 1781; Kirby 406 682, 689, 92 1877, 1882, 32 411 (1972); Frazier Cupp, 394 731, 739, 89 1420, 1424, 22 684 (1969). also falls outside rationale Wade, 388 218, 224, 87 1926, 1930, 18 1149 (1967), needed post-indictment lineup order 'right fair witnesses (the defendant) meaningfully cross-examined.' fully available searching cross-examination 9 Respondent's argument, opinions Appeals, instead rely designed secure right. In brief, position urged proper regard requires, limited exceptions here, solely subsequent criminal For purposes analysis believe thus best examined two separate parts. will consider complained directly infringed violated prophylactic rules developed excluded. III 10 history self-incrimination, evils directed, considerable See, e.g., Kastigar 441, 1653, 212 supra; Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 52, 1594, 678 (1964); Ullmann 350 422, 426, 76 497, 500, 100 L.Ed. 511 (1956); Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 35 1110 (1892). point our virtually every schoolboy familiar concept, language, provision reads: 'No person . shall compelled himself ..' decisions referred 'the mainstay system justice,' 729, 1779, "one great landmarks man's struggle civilized." Ullmann, 500. It surprising constitution has comparable provision. J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2252 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (hereinafter Wigmore). 11 importance itself, determine scope, continue hark back historical origins privilege, particularly strike. painful opposition course ecclesiastical inquisitions Star Chamber proceedings occurring several centuries ago. Levy, Origins (1968); Morgan, Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 34 Minn.L.Rev. (1949); Wigmore 2250. Certainly anyone reads accounts those investigations, placed premium compelling subjects investigation admit guilt their lips, cannot sensitive Framers' desire citizens compulsion. noted, 'was far-reaching evil—a recurrence Inquisition Chamber, even stark brutality.' 428, 501. Where there genuine compulsion broad scope. language cast construed apply situations prosecution seeks defendant testify application so limited. grand jury, civil proceedings, McCarthy Arndstein, 266 34, 45 16, 69 158 (1924); congressional Watkins 354 178, 77 1173, 1273 (1957); juvenile procedings, re Gault, 387 1, 1428, 527 (1967); other statutory inquiries, Malloy Hogan, 1489, 653 (1964). applied virtue Amendment. Ibid. 13 natural concern underlies many inability stage proceeding may invocation useless stage. example, defendant's practically nullified previously required give jury. Testimony obtained suits, administrative legislative committees, prove incriminating readily basis disclosures proceeding.14 14 more recent years concern—that trial—has cases involving interrogation. principal waived statement 'voluntary.' Due Process Clause Amendment, examining processes unfair unreasonable render confession involuntary. Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 56 461, 80 682 (1936); Chambers Florida, 309 227, 60 472, 716 (1940); Texas, 310 530, 1032, 1342 Payne Arkansas, 356 560, 78 844, 975 (1958); Haynes Washington, 373 503, 83 1336, 513 (1963). 815 et seq. (Chadbourne 1970). State's actions offended standards fundamental fairness Clause, deprived resulting confessions court. 15 concerning voluntary often contained references self-incrimination,15 strongly criticized some commentators, 2266,16 until seen protection facing thought offer comprehensive less subjective doctrine previous cases. four stated: 'In cases, find defendants' traditional terms. Our adequate precious rights is, course, lessened slightest. To sure, records evince overt physical coercion patent psychological ploys. fact none officers undertake appropriate outset insure truly product choice.' 457, 1618, 694. 17 Thus expressly declared Self-Incrimination interrogations station, despite character principles. supplement new doctrine, continued risk valuable lost, established specific protective guidelines, commonly known rules. statements, exculpatory inculpatory, stemming custodial demonstrates effective self-incrimination.' Id., 444, 1612. A series recommended 'procedural safeguards' followed. 19 'Prior questioning, warned silent, him, presence retained appointed.' defendant, waive rights, waiver 'voluntarily, knowingly intelligently.' 21 recognized themselves protected Constitution measures protected. remarked: '(W)e say necessarily requires adherence solution inherent compulsions presently conducted.' 23 467, 1624. 24 suggested intended 'create straightjacket,' ibid., provide practical reinforcement 25 comparison underlying indicates here associated Miranda. contend faced bore resemblance practices aimed. 'warned (respondent) silent,' 352 F.Supp. 266, 267 (1972), informed him.17 clear attorney not.18 Thus, hardly termed term defined Additionally, sanctions, threat contempt, chosen silent. He exposed cruel trilemma self-accusation, perjury contempt.' 55, 1596. 26 determination sufficient breach mean disregard, albeit inadvertent how sweeping judicially imposed consequences disregard be. violation principles prosecution's requirement complied here: claiming asleep admitted Wong Sun 371 471, 407, 441 (1963), 'fruits' actually Fourth suppressed.19 But already abridge departed proplylactic laid safeguard privilege. deciding controlling precedent guide us. examine matter principle. IV 27 Just law require receive perfect one, realistically policeman investigating crimes errors whatsoever. pressures enforcement vagaries human nature expectation unrealistic. penalize error, sanction serves valid useful purpose. 28 recently search-and-seizure context, rule's 'prime purpose deter future unlawful thereby effectuate guarantee searches seizures.' Calandra, 338, 347, 613, 619, 561 (1974). continued: 29 "The calculated prevent, repair. Its deter—to compel respect guaranty effectively way—by removing incentive it.' Elkins 364 206, 217 (80 1437, 1444, 1669) (1960).'20 Ibid., 620. 30 seem context well. 31 deterrent assumes engaged willful, very least negligent, By refusing gained conduct, courts hope instill counterparts, greater degree care toward accused. official action pursued complete good faith, deterrence loses much force. significant officers' resolve regardless place,21 narrower ground. guided, quite rightly, focusing suspect's opportunity chose so.22 answered not. observed, accordance (1966). Whatever effect exclusion had, significantly augmented excluding 33 When are involved, justification asserted: reliance untrustworthy evidence.23 Cases involve must, definition, element coercion, provides And depict severe override insistence innocence. Fact ranging classical third-degree torture, (1936), prolonged isolation family friends hostile setting, Callegos Colorado, 370 49, 82 1209, 325 (1962), simple part physically mentally exhausted seemingly endless end, Watts Indiana, 338 1347, 1357, 93 1801 (1949), cause accuse falsely. far cry here. prejudicial dealt More important, successfully introduce indeed third party pressures. There plainly reason counsel. subject opportunity, suggesting exemplary offered incentives respondent.24 contends additional notion government contest individual shoulder entire load.' 2251, p. 317; Comm'n 1596; 460, 1620. extent exist independently trustworthiness rationales, think avail Subject limitations, Government forbidden resort out Schmerber California, 757, 1826, 908 (1966); Dionisio, 410 764, 67 voluntarily after receives disclosure Here deal, evidence, whom statements. violence elements embodied 36 summary, single supporting witness' them together, persuasive.25 contrast, favor admitting strong. For, balancing interests weigh strong interest justice making trier concededly relevant trustworthy adduce. 'must society's criminals light defendants.' Jenkins Delaware, 395 213, 221, 1677, 1681, 253 outweighed need right, Weeks 232 383, 341, 58 652 (1914), they event valued. statement, helped show guilty conscience excised pursuant extend excision third-party advanced 37 interrogated suspects entitle insist conceivable context. Harris York, 401 222, 91 643, (1971), informing access impeach direct could, saying: 'Some comments can read indicating bar uncounseled purpose, discussion necessary regarded controlling. barred accused while waiving follow chief purposes, provided satisfied standards.' 645. 39 reasoning equally enabled admission refrain disagree below should case.26 Reversed. STEWART (concurring). 42 joining Court, I add join BRENNAN'S concurrence. seems me differences phraseology, disclaimers respective authors, BRENNAN proceed along parallel lines, take couple argumentative footnotes. 43 BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins (concurring judgment). 44 finds unnecessary decide question' fruits 'statements place,' ante, 447, my view, unnecessary, too, address requisite answering question, proceeds premise maked commenced that, post-Miranda, resolved. case.1 Frank acknowledgment retroactive newly announced procedure impact administration led us, Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 601 (1965), retroactivity terms three criteria: (1) rules; (2) officials' justifiable standards; (3) Payne, 412 47, 51, 1967, 736 (1973); Stovall Denno, 293, 297, 1970, 1199 Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 410—418, 459, 461—467, 453 'purpose' functional value enhancing factfinding process. Williams 646, 653, 1148, 1152, (1971); id., 663, 1157 opinion); Desist 244, 249—250, 1030, 1033—1034, 248 (1969); Roberts Russell, 392 294, 88 1921, 1922, 1100 638—639, 1742—1743. limiting approach recognition '(t)he basic truth,' 416, 465; 297—298, 1970 1971, legitimate assurance unduly impaired old standards. 46 called procedures Arizona retroactively upset final convictions based Aware possible unreliable accused, nonetheless applied.2 probability truth-determining distorted by, individuals of, coerced minimized, found, availability strict test voluntariness confessions. 730, 1779. addition, agencies justifiably relied rulings necessitate wholesale release retrial vast numbers prisoners. S.Ct.At decision—since petitioners long become Miranda—we went trials begun announced. 732, 1780. 47 conclusion post-Miranda sense, defendants seeking warning Exclusion possibly inherently coercive atmosphere in-custody interrogation, 457—458, 470, 1618—1619, 1624, 1625, low cost. although advising put notice trials. Since yet gone investigations into fresh, envisioned 'no undue burden (being) prosecuting authorities requiring evidentiary substitutes protections afforded Miranda.' 219—220, 48 entirely different problems. Unlike contemplated Johnson, officials obtain likely substantial. lower courts, confronted fruits, differing answers admissibility issue.3 reasonably know substitute necessary. result, appellate determinations admissible, contrary ruling coming commission handicap attempt retry defendant. circumstance, declined retrials persons whose original There, 49 '(C)oncern militates applying .. stated (v. supra), '(I)nquiry handicapped unavailability dim memories.' 300 (87 1967 1971). onerous closed admissible cornerstone case.' 220, 1681 (footnote omitted). 50 Moreover, unreliability—a incustody interrogation—is issue. house whatsoever 'fruits.' 51 integrity obtaining substitutes, confine reach Jersey introduced If warnings, limit interrogations. Cf. 148 (1969).4 52 agree judgment reversed, concur Court.5 53 WHITE 54 reasons dissent 1602 illconceived warrant Constitution. However be, deal admissions specified settled 55 Orozco 324, 1095, 311 (1969), appeared petitioner, murder, benefit Among things, gun hidden recovered ballistic tests, various oral admissions, showed murder. Petitioner's affirmed, applicability being rejected courts. Petitioner urging fruit illegal interrogation—' interrogation' indispensable safeguards. brief merits error tests performed pistol, 'an illegally seized object.' reversed referring Orozco's fatal error. presented, gave intimation anticipated retrial. scope identified means arguable benefits way are, advantages probative aid pursuit truth. same results judgment. 57 DOUGLAS (dissenting). incarcerated introduction preceded deficient enunciated admittedly (accused violates accused's) rights.' 268 (E.D.Mich.1972). 927 (C.A.6 1973). 59 one. indigent represented times court-appointed 'The (against self-incrimination) exists well affluent. relieve proverty, obligation advantage indigence justice. 61 apprise then, warn consult represent him.' 472—473, 1627. 62 says 'did privilege.' Ante, 446. prescribe preferred modes absent basis. 'requirement (to be) privilege,' 476, 1629, powerless reverse Miranda's conviction. mouth precise opinion, 'unless adopted notify person' 479, 1630. contention adopted. 'under meet self-incrimination).' 491, 1636 (emphasis added). 63 With unconstitutional thereof suppressed. Holmes articulated Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 182, 64 319 (1920). petitioner's corporate books documents. photographed items returning photographs subpoena produce originals comply cited contempt. reversing, essence forbidding acquisition certain merely acquired all.' 392, 183. principle Toy agents him. Yee Yee's narcotics Toy. reversing Toy's just discovery. 65 Sun. whereabouts connection mandate (not warnings) against' 1630 66 suggests Though decision, it. disagree, disagreed arbitrary reference Mapp Ohio, 367 81 1684, 1081 (1961), inapplicable 'final' Black, joined me, follows: 68 'Linkletter, 'unconstitutional evidence,' today became decided. stay jail; Miss Mapp, offense committed Linkletter's, free. treatment points up once discriminatory judicial contrivance utilized break promise keeping people jail unfortunate enough 1961.' 641, 1744 (dissenting opinion). calendar determining beneficiaries pronouncements grossly invidious discrimination. 13, 1963; Tucker 1966. conceive principled guarantees forward strictures inference gather accorded charged sort punishment keep depriving passing reason, object rule, adopting sounds lawmaking construing Constitution.' 649, 1748 (Black, J., dissenting). promulgation function perform; 'constitutional privilege' 1636. People unconstitutionally entitled provides, occurred, 'final.' 70 Black Linkletter: 'It certainly offends sense methods vested outweighs adjudged challenge time.' 1750. 71 affirm (1972). (6 Cir. Tr. Prelim. Hearing 99. 99—100. Trial 223. 224. Mich.App. 320, 172 N.W.2d 712 385 Mich. 594, 189 290 (1971). F.Supp., 268. comment silence refusal stand impermissible penalty exercise Griffin 380 609, 1229, 106 (1965). example Bram 168 532, 542, 183, 187, 568 (1897), trials, wherever arises incompetent voluntary, controlled portion commanding 'shall himself." text, states objection terms: 'Today confessions, probably lesser self-incriminating coerced. policies leading extension similar unclear boundaries unending capacity transmogrification assimilation, sometimes invoked Distortion cover coerced, done frankly exception illegality source immaterial. done, usually ground combination due clause.' 402. (Citations omitted.) n. 5, supra. nn. 4, arrest. arrest probable cause, derivative text controls 656, 1692, (1961); 465, Terry 29, 1868, 1884, 889 (1968). 348, Brief Amicus Curiae, seq.; repeatedly Those ultimately confessed. contrast lawyer, so. truth falsity factor Jackson 368, 1774, argue truthfulness. mistrust. Escobedo, 'a comes depend 'confession' will, run, reliable abuses' relying independent investigation, 488—489, 1764, 977. concerned false 489 11, 1764. completely may, advance rehabilitation, nature, serve ends. 226—234. 'lawless invasions citizens,' 1875, imperative integrity.' 1446, 1669 (1960). rationale, really assimilation rationales discussed absence challenged evidence. Brother concurring treats lineal descendant decided analyzed framework decisions. beguiling simplicity, marks unsettling departure past practice area. Gosa Mayden, 413 665, 2926, 873 common factual predicate: governs earlier effect. modify substantive determines apply. predicate No type retroactive, Contrary, suggestion Brother's 'limit Jersey,' post, 454 never parent method disposition make. say, effect, retroactively. wholly subverts heretofore relationship between subsidiary Linkletter, retroactive. Yet hypothesi available, subsequently occasion substantially increasing difficulty before, after, holding. certiorari urge us raised curiae filed support 646 3, 1686, 294 1968, (1967). commented—as number occasions retroactively—that 'we disparage manner declining retroactively.' 728, 1778; (1973). so, prospective aften important correction flaws self-incrimination—guaranteed effectuation rules—serves variety 415—416, 464—465, catalogued 1596, (1964): 'registers development liberty—'one 426 (76 511). reflects values most noble aspirations: unwillingess suspected contempt; preference accusatorial inquisitorial justice; fear inhumane abuses; play dictates state-individual balance alone shown disturbing load,' rev., 1961), inviolability personality each 'to private enclave lead life,' Grunewald, Cir., 233 556, 581—582 (Frank, dissenting), rev'd 353 391 (77 963, 931); distrust self-deprecatory statements; realization shelter guilty,' innocent.' Quinn 349 155, 162 (75 668, 673, 99 964).' (Footnotes Compare instant Cassell, 452 533 (CA7 1971), Peacock, A.D.2d 762, 287 N.Y.S.2d 166 Three approaches affected procedure. review come end approach, abandoned decisions, cutoff begin confrontation Gilbert 263, 1951, 1178 confrontations Katz 389 507, 576 search seizure announcement Katz. 15, 1972, 656—657, cf. Fuller Alaska, 393 80, 81, 61, 62, (1968) (holding Lee 378, 2096, 1166 (1968), ruled 605 Communications Act, U.S.C. 605, Lee). trend placing increased emphasis personnel initially discarded 218 7, 1680, eminent authority consistent rules, i.e., justified Schaefer, Control 'Sunbursts': Techniques Prospective Overruling, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 631, 645—646 My argues concurrence 'marks Court' retroactivity. 26. 'parent' application. assumption rests, namely, Miranda) demonstrated defendant).' 1630, follows itself

Category: 0