Document: 357 U.S. 433 78 S.Ct. 1287 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 John Russell CROOKER, Jr., Petitioner,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 178. Argued April 2, 1958. Decided June 30, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, See 79 12. Mr. Robert W. Armstrong, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. William E. James, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, under sentence death murder his paramour, claims that conviction in a California court violates Fourteenth Amendment due process law because (1) confession admitted into evidence over objection had been coerced from him by state authorities, and (2) even if was voluntary it occurred while he without counsel previous denial request therefor. The Supreme Court affirmed conviction. 47 Cal.2d 348, 303 P.2d 753. Certiorari granted serious implications attend to employ an attorney. 1957, 354 908, 77 1300, 1426.1 We conclude, however, no violation constitutional right has occurred. record here clearly reveals prior petitioner's asked denied opportunity call lawyer. first consider connection with contention subsequent involuntary nature. 3 It is well established prohibits use confessions prosecutions. E.g., Brown v. State Mississippi, 1936, 297 278, 56 461, 80 L.Ed. 682; Watts Indiana, 1949, 338 49, 69 1347, 93 1801; Fikes Alabama, 352 191, 281, 246. As Thomas Arizona, 356 390, 885, 863, Payne Arkansas, 560, 844, 975, we undisputed facts ascertain whether resulted police coercion or exercise own free will. 4 victim's son discovered her body morning July 5, 1955, stabbed strangled bedroom Angeles home. She last known be alive about a.m. same day, when she talked friend telephone. 5 Petitioner arrested apartment at 1:30 afternoon subsequently charged murder. He then 31 years age, college graduate who attended year school. While going school house boy home victim. That position led illicit relationship her, which attempted several times terminate month preceding death. week death, after telling petitioner they found out, requested, agreed, would never see again. 6 Despite this understanding, returned late 4. Finding one home, did nearby ostensible purpose discovering 'threatening' her. From hiding place watched victim return escort around midnight. Shortly thereafter saw leave talk on left vicinity apartment, having entered evening. 7 At time arrest, questioned scratches were evident neck hands. attributed former shaving latter traffic mishap way beach However refused reveal where accident After searched, taken Police Station, photographed take lie detector test. submit test, indicated wanted time, does appear offered Aside sporadic questioning interrogated 8:30—9:30 p.m., being conducted four officers centering refusal During get lawyer, naming specific attorney whom thought might represent him, but told 'after (the) investigation concluded could attorney.' 8 9:30 p.m. transferred West five 11 until shortly formally 'booked,' given physical examination physician. third period men approximately 1—2 6. For next hour wrote signed detailed Afterward, re-enact crime. put jail permitted sleep. 9 afternoon, full day office County District Attorney orally repeat written confession. balked doing so again called. Thereupon placed listened conversation extension phone Neither nor aware tape recording made everything transpired office. interrupted point deny forced answer questions, later advise most convenient back Station. call, meet forward, through both arraignment trial, represented counsel. 10 In 14 hours between arrest confession, coffee allowed smoke whenever liked. also milk sandwich few arrest. Before Station advised lieutenant, 'You don't have say anything you want to,' fact many questions before transfer. such simply stated 'would rather not answer, make statement that.' bare 'detention private official custody' render detained. Allen, 1953, 344 443, 476, 73 397, 417, 97 469. admonition tell truth, Spraf United States, 1895, 156 51, 55—56, 15 273, 275, 39 343, failure authorities comply local statutes requiring accused promptly brought magistrate.2 12 Petitioner's claim coercion, then, depends almost entirely contact counsel.3 This previously occasion determine character obtained denial. But held indigent defendants appointment are thereby rendered involuntary, prosecutions violate Amendment. Borwn 474—476, 416—417, 469; Stroble California, 1952, 343 181, 196—198, 72 599, 606—607; Gallegos Nebraska, 1951, 342 55, 64—68, 141, 147—149, 96 86. To sure, seems more likely result engage than appoint immediately upon greater possibility, decisive. negated intelligence, education. studied criminal law; indeed, informed operator results test admissible trial absent stipulation parties. Supplementing background questions. Moreover, manner refusals indicates awareness silent. On unable other voluntary. 13 turn now voluntary, its reaches reasoning representation advice attorney,4 secondly any during itself barred Due Process Clause, though freely made. think fails sustain point, therefore do reach second. defense, firmly fixed our common-law heritage, significant importance preservation liberty country. Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8th ed. 1927) 696—700; Story Constitution (4th 1893) § 1794. right, secured guaranty process, includes only appointed certain cases, 'a fair secure choice.' Powell 1932, 287 45, 53, 53 58, 158; Chandler Fretag, 1954, 348 3, 75 1, 99 Under these principles, deprived merits, supra, part pretrial proceedings, provided prejudiced as infect absence 'that fundamental fairness essential very concept justice.' Lisenba People 1941, 314 912, 236, 62 280, 290, 86 166. Cf. Moore Michigan, 355 155, 160, 194, 167. determination necessarily all circumstances case. 16 House Mayo, 1945, 324 42, 65 517, 89 739, uneducated man twenties, stranger area, sentenced two convictions against him. there presented burglary information filed State, counsel, finally pleaded guilty information, obviating necessity charge merits. denied. 17 contrast, sum total college-educated training knew keep Such facts, perhaps law,5 approach prejudicial impact show 'taken advantage of,' Townsend Burke, 1948, 334 736, 68 1252, 1254, 92 1690, law. 18 contends different rule should every infringement regard plea waiver—or event accused—such doctrine create complete anomaly, since nothing remain corrected new Refusal absolute bar hand, fairly promises adversely affect chances, suggested lesser still devastating effect enforcement law, effectively preclude questioning—fair unfair—until afforded 'less rigid fluid those envisaged particular provisions Bill Rights,' Betts Brady, 1942, 316 455, 462, 1256, 1595, demands rule.6 19 Affirmed. 20 DOUGLAS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 21 When arrested, real interrogation took place, present. 'I talking them whatever about, * I me *. them.' testimony; verified testimony Sergeant Gotch police. 22 'A. attorney, didn't funds hire went Court's public defender assigned handle 23 'He instructor Pepperdine College probably case name was, said Simpson, lived Long Beach. 24 'Q. your completed, right? 25 investigation, call.' 26 demand extracted accused. Its my view guaranteed citizen 27 finds prejudice consult counsel; bases finding education Glasser 315 60, 76, 457, 467, 680, 'The assistance too allow courts indulge nice calculations amount arising denial.' federal prosecution. what true need equally 28 can judgment sustained offense capital one, Williams Kaiser, 323 471, 363, 398, review determines unfairness resulting applied case, 158, so. Assuming Brady properly decided, basis reason extending charge. 29 concedes extends proceedings itself. great time. stage often necessary give meaning protection heard 10, may restraint coercive power pattern degree runs cases: lone suspect unrepresented force secret inquistion bear. 219, 166; Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 64 921, 88 1192; Haley Ohio, 332 596, 302, 224; Leyra Denno, 347 556, 74 716, 98 948. flourishes secrecy. One feels lawyer asks asking some No matter care innocent people convicted crimes commit, Borchard, Convicting Innocent (1932); Frank Frank, Not Guilty (1957). lower barriers procedural safeguard practices.1 issue seldom helpful. Law usually testify way, another. inquisitions little chance prove coercion. mischief abuse will continue long critical ordeal.2 takes confines station trial. 30 'If final guilt innocence, really needs help pre-trial period. Indeed, hazards that, unaided competent legal advice, lose legitimate defense arraigned trial.' Note, Criminal Procedure—Right Counsel Prior Trial, 44 Ky.L.J. 103—104. Or Committee headed Prof. Zechariah Chafee, 'A person crime time.'3 32 speaks ability himself. Sutherland said, 'Even intelligent educated layman small sometimes skill science requires guiding hand step him.' 69, 64, 158. spoke preparation commencing how educated, trained be, sorely once exact life. caught web circumstantial difficult break. A indiscretions implicated ambiguous explain away. desperately extricate he's innocent. receive benefit 9, 4, extend stage. 33 rights preserved, BLACK, dissenting, re Groban, 330, 340—343, 510, 376: 34 witness effective challenge interrogator's done inquisition. officer's version frequently reflect inaccurate understanding accused's statements or, occasion, deliberately distorted falsified. protest misrepresentations, protestations normally vain. particularly officer accompanied assistants vouch story. public, suspect's present misunderstanding twisting conduct greatly reduced. 35 presence executive bent enforcing provides another witness. Behind closed doors coerced, tricked confused making untrue hide truth creating misleading impressions. custody interrogators, practical matter, subject their uncontrolled Nothing better calculated prevent misuse dealing scrutiny friends disinterested bystanders.' 36 civilization expressed Clause require wants moment arrest.4 grant certiorari limited questions: '1. Was defendant custody? '2. admission fourteen attorney?' Section 849 Penal Code warrant must nearest accessible magistrate county 'without unnecessary delay.' Cal.Penal Code, 1956, 849. Even within scope certiorari, violence—'third degree' methods witnesses hence portions here. reply officer, hurt you,' response assertion Attorney's struck cannot alter contradicted categorically cross-examination appears urge rule' barring regardless appeal supervisory administration justice courts. McNabb 1943, 318 332, 63 608, 87 819, which, significantly enough, cites. short state, federal, court. 825 'may prisoner relative prisoner, visit arreted.' Any wilfully refuses let misdemeanor. 825. decision overruling, suppose, related cases. decisions involve problem, What situation required another, this, course, least change provide eliminate fairness. ruling always immediate honoring obtain one's hardly means techniques admit commit embrace ideas oppose Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination Exploitation American Military Civilian Prisoners, S.Rep. 2832, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. Sam Bass Warner How Can Third Degree Be Eliminated? Rights Rev. 24, (1940) 'Everywhere formula successful detective work laid down Captain Fiaschetti New York City police: bit grab break down. done—a general formula." Report Lawless Enforcement Law, Am.Bar Assn., Am.J. Sci. 575; Degree, National Commission Observance (1931) 13; President's Civil (1947) et seq. Dean Roscoe Pound 1934 follows problem: 'In States feeling prosecutors ought able interrogate suspected persons ago systematic development extra-legal downright illegal examinations officials, external appearance legality. These become much course read paper prosecutor examined (the word chosen 'grilled') anywhere ten forty-eight consecutive hours, relays wear out They practice. Prosecutors pretence authority subjected ignorant, unadvised rights, insignificant, employing bold resort practices become, newspapers 'incommunicado' grilling on. 'No thundering derivatives analogues achieve anything. temper permit strengthening safeguards come tendency opposite direction. largely behind boldness highhanded, secret, interrogations incommunicado constantly carried 'My proposition remedy satisfy reasonable thus away excuse extralegal questionings. express provision magistrate; rights; taking guarantee accuracy. things are, abuses system constant conflict saying it.' J.Crim.L. & C. 1014, 1016, 1017. recently T. B. Smith, distinguished Scottish lawyer: opportunities exerting pressure confess greatest judicial supervision, scrutiny. If anccused seeks retract allegedly extorted stand alone expected improper pressure. totalitarian states extra-judicial brain-washing eventually convince committed improbable offenses, less third-degree retracted may, nevertheless, damaged irreparably.' Tulane L.Rev. 349, 354. Documents Fundamental Human Rights, Pamphlets 1—3 (1951—1952), p. 541. Scots Lord General Chalmers H. M. Advocate, 1954 Sess.Cas. 66, 78: theory initial question anyone acquiring lead detection criminal; reached suspicion, centred perpetrator crime, further becomes dangerous, and, far, e.g., extracting amounts cross-examination, certainly excluded. Once apprehended statutory interview solicitor speed advised, emit declaration conditions prejudice.' Quite practices. 825, provides: cases delay, event, days excluding Sundays holidays; entitled practice arrested. neglects charge, proper application therefor shall forfeit pay party aggrieved hundred dollars, recovered action jurisdiction.' Another type statute contained Kan.Gan.Stat., 62—1304a, 'That pending confinement confer privately choice room listening devices.' similar Kansas Act Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann., 1953 (Cum.Supp.1957), c. 39—1—1; Ill.Rev.Stat., 38, 449.1; Vernon's Ann.Mo.Stat., 544.170; Mont.Rev.Codes, 1947, 93—2117; N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann., 594:16; N.C.Gen.Stat., 15—47; Page's Ohio Rev.Code Ann., 2935.16. 37 A.L.I. Model Procedure.

Category: 0