Document: 492 U.S. 195 109 S.Ct. 2875 106 L.Ed.2d 166 Jack R. DUCKWORTH, Petitionerv.Gary James EAGAN. No. 88-317. Argued March 29, 1989. Decided June 26, Syllabus Respondent, when first questioned by Indiana police in connection with a stabbing, made an exculpatory statement after being read and signing waiver form that provided, inter alia, if he could not afford lawyer, one would be appointed for him "if you go to court." However, 29 hours later, was interviewed again, signed different form, confessed the led officers site where they recovered relevant physical evidence. Over respondent's objection, his two statements were admitted into evidence at trial. After Supreme Court upheld conviction attempted murder, respondent sought writ of habeas corpus District claiming, among other things, confession inadmissible because did comply requirements Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. The denied petition, holding record clearly manifested adherence Miranda. Appeals reversed on ground advice counsel will court" constitutionally defective it indigent accused clear unequivocal warning right before interrogation linked future event. Held: Informing suspect attorney does render warnings inadequate. Pp. 200-205. (a) need given exact described but simply must reasonably convey rights. initial respondent—that had remain silent, anything said used against court, speak during questioning even hire one, stop answering questions any time until talked provide lawyer court"—touched all bases required 201-203. (b) misapprehended effect language. This instruction accurately reflects Indiana's procedure appointment counsel, which occur defendant's court appearance, anticipates suspect's question as obtain counsel. 203-204. (c) require attorneys producible call, only informed cannot waives, did, P. 204. (d) Respondent's reliance California Prysock, 453 355, 101 2806, 69 696—which held sufficient reference [to a] point interrogation"—is misplaced since Prysock involved apprise have present chose answer questions. eight sentences warning, "before [the police] ask[ed] [him] questions," while another stated "to [he] talk[ed] lawyer." 204-205. 843 F.2d 1554 (CA7 1988), remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. J., filed concurring opinion, joined, post, 205. MARSHALL, dissenting BRENNAN, Part I BLACKMUN STEVENS, p. 214. David Michael Wallman, A. Schoening, Robert S. Spear, Indianapolis, Ind., petitioner. Lazerwitz, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae supporting petitioner, special leave Court. Howard B. Eisenberg, Carbondale, Ill., respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 Respondent stabbing woman nine times she refused sexual relations him, convicted murder. Before confessing, police, included United States Seventh Circuit such 694 (1966). We disagree reverse. 2 Late May 16, 1982, contacted Chicago officer knew report seen naked body dead lying o Lake Michigan beach. involvement criminal activity. He then took several beach, crying help. When saw respondent, exclaimed: "Why stab me? Why me?" told been earlier night, attacked men who abducted van. 3 next morning, realizing crime committed Indiana, turned investigation over Hammond, Police Department. repeated Hammond story lakefront, men. filled out battery complaint local station, agreed headquarters further questioning. 4 At about 11 a.m., doing so, entitled "Voluntary Appearance; Advice Rights," asked sign it. provided: "Before we ask questions, understand your You silent. Anything say can court. talk this presence one. no way giving you, wish, If wish now without present, time. also you've 1554, 1555-1556 1988) (emphasis added).1 5 explanation activities previous evening. 6 placed "lock up" headquarters. Some p.m. 18, again questioning, following respondent: 7 "1. making statement, advised silent might may or me law. 8 "2. That consult my own choice saying anything, am throughout course conversation so choose. 9 "3. request taking conversation. 10 "4. refuse thereby terminating "5. do attorney, provided me." Id., 1556. 12 back proceeded confess st bbing woman. beach knife items clothing. 13 trial, state confession, denying crime, knife, jury found guilty acquitted rape. sentenced 35 years' imprisonment. appeal. Eagan State, 480 N.E.2d 946 (Ind.1985). 14 Northern "clearly manifests . especially so-called second statement." App. Pet. Cert. A52. 15 A divided reversed. (1988). majority court," "constitutionally denies interrogation," "link[s] indigent's event." 1557. relied Circuit's decision ex rel. Williams Twomey, 467 1248, 1250 (1972), condemned, "misleading confusing," inclusion language warnings. Turning admissibility thought "as result [respondent] arguably believed secure interrogation" "did explicitly correct misinformation." F.2d, 1558. It therefore remanded case determination whether knowingly intelligently waived interview. judge rejected majority's "formalistic, technical unrealistic application Miranda" argued passed constitutional muster. 1562. In case, remand necessary indicated covered Oregon Elstad, 470 298, 105 1285, 84 222 (1985). 1570-1571. rehearing en banc, four judges from order. A1-A2. granted certiorari, 488 888, 218, 102 209 (1988), resolve conflict lower courts informing renders inadequate.2 agree not.3 17 (1966), established certain procedural safeguards advise suspects their rights under Fifth Fourteenth Amendments commencing custodial interrogation. now-familiar words, "he has says law, prior desires." 479, S.Ct., 1630. "presumed circumstances is inherently coercive those are unless specifically warned freely decides forgo rights." New York Quarles, 649, 654, 104 2626, 2630, 81 550 (1984) (footnote omitted). 18 never insisted decision.4 itself, "[t]he accordance our today are, absence fully effective equivalent, prerequisites defendant." U.S., 476 added). See Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 297, 100 1682, 1687, 64 297 (1980) (referring "the familiar equivalent"). 696 (1981) (per curiam), 'rigidity' [does not] exten[d] precise formulation defendant," "no talismanic incantation [is] satisfy its strictures." 359, 2809. 19 limited station house see supra (police car), field always access printed warnings, inadvertently depart routine practice, particularly requests elaboration prophylactic "not themselves protected Constitution [are] instead measures insure compulsory self-incrimination protected." Tucker, 417 433, 444, 94 2357, 2364, 41 182 (1974). Reviewing examine construing defining terms easement. inquiry "conve[y] [a suspect] Miranda." supra, 361, 2810. 20 think touched "this [he could] one," "right 1555-1556. As noted, added suggested "only "implie[d] 'go court,' i.e.[,] government file charges, [counsel] all." 21 view, First, Indiana. Under appearance Ind.Code § 35-33-7-6 formal charges hearing, 35-33-7-3(a).5 relatively commonplace suspect, receiving question.6 Second, informed, here, one.7 emphasized suggesting "each 'station lawyer' prisoners." 474, 1628. requires waives Ibid. Here, just that. 22 relies, Brief 24-29, interrogation." 360, 2810 referred finding deficient But vice suffer defect. Of "stop hold totality, satisfied Miranda, well clothing, properly 23 consideration tainted 1557-1558. view disposition reach question.8 judgment accordingly reversed, proceedings consistent decision. 24 ordered. 25 whom SCALIA joins, concurring. 26 concur THE CHIEF JUSTICE's write separately address alternative raised, upon, rationale Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 49 1067 (1976), dictates suppression remedy unavailable federal habeas. 27 * seven years ago stabbed him. Claiming innocently discovered body, woman, who, upon seeing immediately identified her assailant. twice detectives. gave indicating same persons assaulted victim. interview, stabbing. clothing near scene assault. both inadequate t. evidentiary trial motion suppress. murder On appeal, claim encounter insufficient underMiranda. 946, 949-950 noted there product coercion overbearing. 950. 28 1986, petition U.S.C. 2254. raised litigated in, by, courts. possibility cognizable "[f]or purposes issue remains solved Circuit." A-50. "coercive conduct" part petition. A-52—A-53. panel violation rule occurred, remanding hearing determine "tainted" allegedly encounter. 1557 reverses. Eighteen plenary claims. None these intimated doubt guilt voluntariness probative value confession. litigation, courts' exercise jurisdiction served one: Amendment itself ever alleged; deserving punishment; full fair opportunity litigate court; marginal enhanced highly some conduct far outweighed harm society's interest punishing incapacitating violate laws. II Powell claims should excluded alleged violated Fourth entertained proceeding available exclusionary " 'is judicially created designed safeguard generally through deterrent effect.' 486, 3048, quoting Calandra, 414 338, 348, 613, 620, 38 561 costs high: often conclusive withheld trier fact hope "encourag[ing] formulate law enforcement policies, implement them, incorporate ideals system." Stone, 492, 3051. structural device promote sensitivity values effect. such, rule's utility must, long recognized, weig ed important application. Where likely marginal, offends central system governance judicial process, declined extend context. See, e.g., Leon, 468 897, 920-921, 3405, 3419-3420, 82 677 (refusing apply rely good faith warrant issued neutral magistrate); 349, 621 grand "would seriously impede jury"); Walder States, 347 62, 65, 74 354, 356, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954) (exclusionary create "a shield contradiction defendant's] untruths" seized impeachment purposes). 30 violations effectiveness deterring misconduct, offending principles federalism finality jurisdiction. weighing process leads ineluctably conclusion accorded petitioner somehow deficient. Indeed, scales appear tip toward repose context than itself. 31 guarantees "[n]o person shall compelled witness himself." roots Framers' belief justice focus extraction proof defendant himself adjunct tyranny lead innocent persons. Thus, guarantee occurs "compelled" governmental bear oneself process. Colorado Connelly, 479 157, 163-164, n. 1, 107 515, 93 473 (1986); Malloy Hogan, 378 6-8, 1489, 1492-1494, 653 (1964). quite possibly contained within 32 not, nor be, dictate implicitly acknowledged much procedures dictated Court's concerns, 1612, what implicit explicit subsequent cases. 306-310, 1291-1294, (1985) (noting "sweeps more broadly itself" "may triggered violation"); accord, (1984); 442-446, 2362-2365, Like rules, "overprotects" stake. name efficient administration institutional respect values, sacrifices uncovering While balance interests perfectly justified direct review convictions, shifts applied presumptive y final collaterally proceeding. KENNEDY recently noted: 33 "[F]ederal entails significant costs. disturbs State's concluded society punish offenders, intrudes sovereignty degree matched few exercises authority." Harris Reed, 489 255, 282, 1038, 1053, 103 308 (1989) (dissenting opinion). 34 weeks retroactively prisoners habeas, noting unrelated truth seeking function retrial release numerous trustworthy evidence." Johnson Jersey, 719, 730-731, 1772, 1779-1780, 882 addressed consistently attached situations minimal compelling interests. Hass, 420 714, 722-723, 95 1215, 1220-1221, 43 570 (1975) (statements taken impeach testimony trial); 448-449, 2365-2367 third party fruits violation); id., 461, 2372 (WHITE, judgment) ("The arguable benefits excluding compel admissions advantages having testimony, obtained actual coercion, trials aid pursuit truth"). Title 2243 "dispose matter require," recognized "in considerations comity concerns orderly power." Francis Henderson, 425 536, 539, 1708, 1710, 48 149 (1976). Relitigation offers little additional incentive abide awarding relief strike like lightning, absurd exclusion appreciable training behavior. Judge Friendly wrote: "The mere failure administer creates risk unreliability, permitting collateral attack goes beyond diminishing returns." Friendly, Is Innocence Irrelevant?, Collateral Attack Criminal Judgments, U.Chi.L.Rev. 142, 163 (1970). hand, setting significantly magnified. sit "review" judgments highest system. situation flashpoint tension delicate relationship courts, power undertaken lightly Perhaps most troubling cost Excluding new ractical impossibility, admittedly individual pose continuing threat society. vindicate outside unlikely remedy, positively perverse. Exclusion teaches casts game, sends message unmoved laws willing frustrate smallest returns. bars relitigation allegations seems directly applicable nonconstitutional 36 MARSHALL's accuses exhibiting profound distaste Miranda," 224, review. disrespect particular substantive serve designed. Our jurisprudence distinction between review, suggest rules treated differently Greer Miller, 483 756, 767-769, 3102, 3110-3111, 97 618 (1987) (STEVENS, concurring) (distinguishing Doyle Ohio, 426 610, 2240, 91 forbids prosecutorial comment postarrest silence); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 420-429, 1232, 1250-1255, 51 424 (1977) (Burger, dissenting) (suggesting applicability habeas); Rose Lundy, 455 509, 543-544, 8, 1198, 1216-1217, 71 379 (1982) dissenting); Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 272-273, 617, 628-629, 88 598 (1986) (Powell, dissenting). Timmreck, 441 780, 99 2085, 60 634 (1979), unanimous purely Federal Rule Procedure justify granting despite Timmreck considered grounds automatic reversal McCarthy 394 459, 89 1166, 418 (1969). lie "profound distaste" 11, rather force challenging judgment. 784, 2087. 37 dissent's "judicial activism" assertion "Congress determined" outweighs bringing resolution 222, 228, ring hollow indeed statute. scope undergone substantial expansion, return intended" reduce extension Kuhlmann Wilson, 477 445-446, 2616, 2622-2623, 364 (plurality opinion) ("Until early century, statutes defined common uring gradually expanded available"); Rose, 546-548, 1217-1219 Fay Noia, 372 391, 445, 83 822, 852, 837 (1963) (Clark, 448, 853 (Harlan, above, "habeas traditionally regarded governed equitable principles," 438, 848 (citation omitted), thus balancing dissent condemns "activism." State raise below suggests bar raises jurisdictional quasi-jurisdictional nature. 482, 17, 3046, 17. Other parts rest nature equity court's withhold forms relief. 494-495, 37, 3052-3053, 37. Since foreclosing analysis outlined join 39 BRENNAN STEVENS I, dissenting. 40 holds advising satisfies reaches mischaracterizing infor[m] custody "that 471, 1626, 1630 qualified caveat nothing kind; instead, believe indeterminate acquiesce debasement historic precedent, see, (1985); (1984), dissent. express disagreement O'CONNOR's uninvited suggestion extended take inform of, represent interrogation: "In order interrogated extent ., warn Without admonition understood meaning funds couched indigent—the subjected interrogation—the knowledge too present. general assurance truly position it." 473, 1628 (footnotes 42 mandated specific verbal use, speaking Warren, repeatedly offer "effective express." Ibid.; 476, 1629 (only "fully equivalent" pass muster); 1612 (requiring "other means"); 467, 1624 "at least effective"); 490, 1636 (stating free develop privilege [against self-incrimination], above"). is, short, "absolute prerequisite 1626. concluding Eagan, quoted ante, 198, makes mockery initially very breath, that, when" went found, easily "those questions; fortunate wait." 1988); 1972). was, all, delayed fact, negating promise best, know services Emler 259 Ind. 241, 286 408, 412 (1972) (DeBruler, dissenting).1 44 lawyerlike fashion, JUSTICE parses finds plausible interpretation later appeared What wholly overlooked recipients frightened unlettered lawyers others schooled interpreting legal semantic nuance. Such hardly expected interpret, facile manner JUSTICE, pretzel-like here—intertwining, contradictory, ambiguous are." Commonwealth Johnson, 484 Pa. 399 A.2d 111, 115 (1979) omitted) (finding similar caveat). refuses recognize wou d present." 1627 45 Even typical draw inference does—that commence appearance—a still fails give indication Upon conclude parlance, "going synonymous trial." Furthermore, negative implication "is An unwitting harboring uncertainty score precisely sort feel "voluntarily" effort extricate predicament: 46 "[The effectively custody—in alien, friendless, harsh world—for length To average accused, hoping stage home dinner make work time, away nebulous 'if when' coerced obvious kind." Dickerson 257 562, 276 845, 852 result) identical case). 47 1250; Schade 512 P.2d 907, 920 (Alaska 1973) (Boochever, concurring). "accurately Indiana," 204, mitigate talking police. true, "station lawyer" ready custody. reasonable period rights, decide reason alone. indefinite deferral interrogation, Indiana's, constitutes means pressure Sanctioning practices misrepresent let state-law tail wag dog.2 misreading Miranda—stating "touc[h] 203, "reasonably 'conve[yed]' ibid. measured totality," 205—is exacerbated curiam ), squarely supports Eagan's case. juvenile t parents well. Appeal ruled expressly "nothing limitation counsel." 360-361, 2809-2810. reaching result, pointedly distinguished series decisions time." Garcia, 431 134 (CA9 1970) example, occasion 'when answered questions,' 'have [her] [she] appear[ed] Commissioner Court.' Similarly, People Bolinski, 260 Cal.App.2d 705, 718, 67 Cal.Rptr. 347, 355 (1968), charged.' These correctly defective, explained, "[i]n instances interrogation,"3 initial, conditional suffers fatal disingenuous ignore characterizing involving "apprise[d] questions." Ante, 50 poses great burden eradicate confusion stemming caveat. Deleting sentence containing needs done. Cassell, 452 533, 541, 1971). Purged language, tells straightforward fashion come doubts source confusion, compare crystal-clear currently FBI, 202, 4. indistinguishable co veyed defies belief. dissent.4 Not content disemboweling directly, O'CONNOR seeks indirectly well, urging barred considering prisoner seek litigation claim. joined BRENNAN's "portends evisceration jurisdiction." 503, 3056. writing majority, dismissed "misdirected" "hyperbole opinion," 494, 3052, insisting based unique rule. Today, however, though Duckworth certiorari. Her evinces palpable state-court viewed harbinger assaults corpus.5 52 wrong decided today. reread statute, unable find unworthy protection, worthy protection others. Congress delineate "second class" 3062 (BRENNAN, contrary, deemed pursuant treaties States." 2254(a). plain supposed count something, carve exception rooting text statute difficult justify. 53 Article III Constitution, Congress—not Court—determines inferior undoubtedly aware convictions disserve difficult. determined, individual's vindicating forum concerns. "last say." Brown Allen, 344 443, 508, 73 397, 446, 469 (1953) (opinion Frankfurter, J.). Regardless congressional scheme accords ours make. 511, 3060 ("[A]s district efficacious method asserting primacy law") original); Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 323, 2781, 2791, 61 560 (1979); cf. Mincey 437 385, 402-405, 2408, 2418-2420, 57 290 (1978) (MARSHALL, 54 driven hostility apparent. She writes: 55 "[L]ower 'review' practical society." 211 (concurring 56 logic sweeps broad compass Once specter criminals, imagine non-guilt-related protection. ignores defendants innocence, apparent Mitchell, 545, 2993, 739 preclude c aim racial discrimination selection foreperson, defendants' culpability murders charged disputed. guilt-related claims, along double jeopardy, speedy disapprobation pervades How else explain remarkable stake" proceedings? irrespective one's merits critical With exceptions, prosecutors introduce permits introduction statements, error committed. Unless indisputably true challenges appeal "suddenly vanis[h] appellate exhausted." 536-537, 3071-3072 58 assuming decided, outweigh costs, reject itself." "cost" solely operates, requirements, prevent juries Powell's subtler focused "typically reliable." 3050. erroneous admission type evidence, cast "truthfinding process." 497, 3053 (BURGER, rule—"a pistol, packet heroin, counterfeit money, victim," ibid.—a self-incriminatory ordinarily probative. unlike presumptively unreliable. 664, 2629, (O'CONNOR, part) ("When administering answers received presumed ."). integrity factfinding process" called question. 414, 1247, appropriate. 59 iStone overlooks difference According primary justification deterrence misconduct. 3048; 510, 9, 3059, By contrast, secured heart accusatorial system—"a establish independently prove charge mouth." Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 735, 739, 760 (1961). recognizes much, acknowledging longstanding persons." Unlike rule, purportedly exists purposes, protect [a] distinctive components law." White Finkbeiner, 687 885, 893 1982) (declining claims). attempts elide advocating "nonconstitutional" 212 presumably "voluntary statements." 1292, original). accepted proposition thing "voluntary" statements. premise [suspect] choice" 458, 1619; 1612. Douglas explained: "Miranda purpose promulgation preferred standards powerless perform; enunciated 'constitutional privilege' self-incrimination." 465-466, 2374-2375, (1974) opinion), 491, 1636. Granted, area protections affords perceived technicalities," Jones Thomas, 491 376, 2522, 2529, 322 (1989), fundamental embodied Self-Incrimination Clause stake whenever raised. Orozco Texas, 324, 326, 1095, 1096, 311 (1969) ("[T]he use flat construed inMiranda "). possible identify class gained attempting advance petitioners raising not. obligated inquire each petitioner's deciding apply. Moreover, many coupled trad tional involuntariness Due Process Clause, inquiries inevitable. Cardwell Taylor, 461 571, 573, 2015, 2016, 76 333 (1983) ) ("[I]f involuntary, Amendment, [could] grant review"). attention "[d]ifficulties subtleties technique [make] impossible cases judiciary confidence voluntarily unconstitutionally compelled." 683, 2646 purported "costs" context, preventing overburdening 31, 3051, exist 62 event, vehemently oppose decide, vague notions comity, finality, intrinsic not.6 already engaged reviewing years, remotely remiss so. unhappy head on. end run activism worst. remainder "I, [Gary Eagan,] Detective Bureau Department, Officers [sic] regard conducting. arrest office "Prior furnished above (read) (had me) are. statement. want lawyer. doing. No promises threats kind 1560, 2. consider Wright North Carolina, 405, 406-407 (CA4 1973), cert. denied, 415 936, 1452, 494 (1974); Massimo 463 1171, 1174 (CA2 1972), 409 1117, 920, 700 (1973); Lacy, 513 (CA5 1971); Sterling, 377 So.2d 58, 62-63 (La.1979); Harrell 357 643, 645-646 (Miss.1978); Rowbotham 542 618-619 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); Grennier 70 Wis.2d 213-215, 234 N.W.2d 316, 321-322 (1975); 915-916 1973); Mumbaugh, Ariz. 589, 596-597, 450-451 (1971); Campbell, Mich.App. 196, 201-202, 4, 6-7 (1970), 401 945, 960, 228 Swift, App.Div.2d 183, 186-187, 300 N.Y.S.2d 639, 643-644 (1969), 396 1018, 90 584, 510 although using Contreras, 667 976, 979 (CA11), 459 849, 109, (1982); Coyote 380 305, (CA10), 389 992, 489, (1967); Maluia, Haw. 428, 431-435, 539 1200, 1205-1207 243-244, 410-411 (1972); 337, 343-345, 230 677, 682-683 (1975). minority including 1249-1250 1972); Gilpin 638, 641 1969); Dess, 184 Mont. 116, 120-122, 602 144-145 352-357, 112-114 Square 283 Ala. 548, 550, 219 377, 378-379 Petitioner argue, For standard Investigation follows: understa "You "Anything "If wish. Amicus Curiae 1-2, 1. counse appointed, filing indictment information. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 5(a), (c). oral argument, officials avoid "unnecessary litigation." Tr. Oral Arg. 16. FBI's then-current practice "of pay, availability Judge," 1633, "consistent today," 484, 1634. argues set 38-40. Circuit, Richardson Duckworth, 834 1366 1987), Robinson 272 312, 397 956 plainly Numerous equivalent. 201, 2; also, 533 1970); Oliver, 421 1034 (CA10 Reed 255 Ark. 63, 498 S.W.2d 877 Burns 486 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Creach, 77 Wash.2d 194, 329 (1969); Robbins, N.C.App. 463, 167 S.E.2d (1968); Brooks 229 833 (Del.1967). Nothing matter, notion indefinitely delay appointed. detain providing Solicitor General, emphasizing words "after reasons "does condemn link 18. argument spurious. Garcia Bolinski event occurring yet cited approval. basic problem (and case) erroneously (1982). whatsoever, 198-199, "plainly 205, 8. subject dispute Sotelo 264 342 844, 851 (1976) J. complied necessarily follow knowing intelligent. Given misapprehension caused warning," adequate standing alone, mistaken impression corrected. various factors inquiry, passage principal sufficiently earlier, warning. factual surrounding events issue," 1558; 34-38, "remand [Eagan] appropriate course. claiming component. Whatever faint allusions page 3046 crystal "[o]ur mean lacks [Fourth Amendment] claim." 495, 3052. Nor lack fairly component, hard why refusing Sixth explained ' presented briefs arguments." paraphrase BRENNAN: "[A]ll 'costs' applying [Miranda] incurred misapplied principles. evaluated were] fashioned. proper acting directive last principles, permit enjoyment definition interpreted [Miranda]." 512, 10,

Category: 0