Document: 444 U.S. 469 100 S.Ct. 652 62 L.Ed.2d 622 Charles TAGUEv.State of LOUISIANA. No. 79-5386. Jan. 21, 1980. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner was charged with armed robbery in violation La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:64 (West 1974). He convicted by a jury and sentenced to 65 years at hard labor without benefit parole. His conviction affirmed the Supreme Court Louisiana brief per curiam opinion. 372 So.2d 555, 556 (1979). On rehearing, divided court reaffirmed petitioner's conviction. Ibid. It rejected his contention that an inculpatory statement made arresting officer introduced trial had been obtained rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). 2 At suppression hearing court, testified he read petitioner from card, could not presently remember what those were, recall whether asked understood as him, "couldn't say yes or no" rendered any tests determine literate otherwise capable understanding rights. 557. 3 A majority held is 4 "compelled give intelligence test person who has advised if understands them . 5 "Absent clear readily apparent lack thereof, it can be presumed capacity understand, burden on one claiming show lack. LSA-C.C. arts. 25 1782 ." Id., 557-558. Justice Dennis dissent wrote 6 "[c]ontrary explicit requirements United States 694, today creates presumption defendant constitutional places proof upon defendant, instead state, demonstrate knowingly intelligently waived privilege against self-incrimination right retained appointed counsel." 558. 7 We agree. The majority's error apparent. Arizona clearly stated principles govern once required warnings have given. 8 "If interrogation continues presence attorney taken, heavy rests government counsel. Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 490, n. 14, 84 1758, 1764, 12 977. This always set high standards for waiver rights, Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), we re-assert these applied in-custody interrogation. Since State responsible establishing isolated circumstances which takes place only means making available corroborated evidence given during incommunicado interrogation, rightly its shoulders." U.S., 475, S.Ct., 1628. 9 Just last Term, holding need but may inferred actions words interrogated, firmly reiterated 10 "[t]he courts must presume did waive rights; prosecution's great North Carolina Butler, 441 369, 373, 99 1755, 1757, 60 286 11 In this case no all prove before statement. therefore inadmissible. Accordingly, motion leave proceed forma pauperis petition writ certiorari are granted, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent 13 So ordered. 14 CHIEF JUSTICE would oral argument. 15 Mr. REHNQUIST dissents. thinks that, described opinion Louisiana, fully consistent (1979), other decision Court.

Category: 0