Document: 395 U.S. 213 89 S.Ct. 1677 23 L.Ed.2d 253 Thornton A. JENKINS, Petitioner,v.State of DELAWARE. No. 748. Argued March 5, 1969. Decided June 2, Henry N. Herndon, Jr., Wilmington, Del., for petitioner. Jay H. Conner, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 In Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 719, 86 1772, 16 882 (1966), we held that Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694 'applies ony to cases in which trial began after date our (Miranda) decision * *.' U.S., at 721, 1775. this case, must decide whether Miranda's standards determining admissibility in-custody statements apply post-Miranda retrials1 originally tried prior decision.2 We hold they do not. 2 Petitioner was arrested on morning 17, 1965, as a murder suspect, and interrogated three separate occasions, 11:30 a.m., 2:50 p.m., 7:05 p.m. Although indigent, he not advised had right have an attorney present State's expense. Approximately 10 minutes evening interrogation began, petitioner gave police statement admitted struggling with victim during burglary preceding evening. 3 Petitioner's first commenced January 13, 1966. He did take stand, but his incriminating into evidence. The jury found him guilty degree fourth degree. Disregarding jury's recommendation, court sentenced death. During pendency petitioner's appeal Supreme Court Delaware, decided Johnson. reversing conviction various state grounds, Delaware also determined, sua sponte, under statement, obtained without fully advising constitutional rights, would be admissible retrial. 230 A.2d 262 (1967). It reasoned retrial mere continuation case Miranda. 4 second October 1967. convicted life imprisonment. affirmed, again rejecting argument inadmissible 240 146 (1968). Because disagreement among courts over issue,3 granted certiorari. 393 950, 380, 21 361 For reasons stated below, affirm. 5 decisions relies upon4 emphasize references 'trials' before concern reliance placed pre-Miranda by well law enforcement officers. argues 'studied' focus process indicates intended applied retrials, which, insists, begin anew. As correctly points out, however, more than once holding terms 'cases' See 733, 1781. authorities it upon5 argue that, since word 'case' usually incorporates all judicial proceedings against accused, is 'commencement' case. quotes only '(f)uture defendants will benefit from new governing incustody interrogation, while past may still avail themselves voluntariness test.' Id., 732, S.Ct., 1780. suggests petitioner, who six months Miranda, cannot regarded 'future' defendant within meaning That there language supporting positions both respondent demonstrates what some commentators readily recognized: decision, consider applicability retrials.6 issue simply presented. 6 buttresses interpretation arguing retrials order insure uniform treatment individuals similarly situated. If applied, possible different protection rights could two simultaneously same courthouse similar offenses. This anomaly result if one been previously offense identical result, recent prospectivity decisions. Desist United States, 394 244, 1030, 22 248 (1969), Stovall Denno, 388 293, 87 1967, 18 1199 (1967), selected prohibited practice engaged in, rather commenced, determine newly formulated standards, those dates were announced. fact, decisions, rules govern where neither before, depending upon when condemned in. 7 Moreover, acknowledges, made quite clear need trials yet final On date, precisely posture. type apparent incongruity urges us avoid equally refusing whose cases, like petitioner's, decided, making exception because afforded wholly unrelated statement. Nor hypothetical disconcerting apl ying Ernesto denying them other fortuitous reasons, reached later although 8 short, refers 'visible imperfection(s) process' merely highlights problem inherent prospective decision-making, i.e., rule others not, solely fortuities progress their initial investigation arrest judgment. resulting incongruities balanced impetus technique provides implementation long overdue reforms, otherwise practicably effected. Thus, raising stector potential anomalies does further difficult selecting precise event should application principle. 9 Once established applying principle prospectively, Jersey has pointed 'there large measure discretion involved deciding time deemed controlling.' State Vigliano, 50 N.J. 51, 65—66, 232 129, 137 area, determinative moment discarded relied upon. e.g., supra; supra. point critical, any compulsion, determines impact articulated principles convictions pursuant investigatory prosecutorial practices proscribed. supra, 882. generally Schaefer, Control 'Sunbursts': Techniques Prospective Overruling, 42 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 631 (1967).7 11 Johnson, considering unreasonably disrupting administration criminal laws, commencement determinative. course judgments final, good-faith then applicable. Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731 (1965). choice 'would (have) impose(d) unjustifiable burden justice.' han, adopted approach took reliance, interrogated, operative event. 646. But effort extend many consistent society's legitimate already validly needlessly aborted, trial. Implicit assumption few exceptions, commission crime sufficiently proximate defendant's no undue imposed prosecuting requiring find evidentiary substitutes violation protections 12 justifiable officials militates place much heavier prosecutors compensate inadmissibility evidence See, People Sayers, N.Y.2d 571, N.E.2d 540 (1968); Comment, Applicability Retrials, 116 U.Pa.L.Rev. 316, 324—325 Stovall, '(I)nquiry handicapped unavailability witnesses dim memories.' 300, 1971. particularly onerous closed years good faith strongly trial, provide cornerstone prosecution's case.8 assume affect small number cases. could, example, render significantly prosecutions defendants, whom ago, are recently retroactive. Berger California, 314, 540, 508 (1969); Roberts Russell, 392 88 1921, 20 1100 Such pose serious obstacle successful prosecution undetermined reversed errors federal or even constitute violations.9 13 how weight give increased insist interest effective criminals light afford defendants. out individual claim benefits resort whatever procedures available voluntarily. invoke 'substantive test persistence abusive practices, become increasingy meticulous *, (taking) specific account failure advise accused privilege self-incrimination allow access outside assistance.' 730, 1779. preclude invocation 'the safeguards part involuntariness claim.' Ibid. insisting retroactively, retrial10 14 Accordingly, judgment affirmed. 15 Affirmed. BLACK, DOUGLAS joins, dissents dissenting opinions 640, 1731, 1743, 601, 736, 1782, 17 HARLAN, dissenting. never agreed nonetheless felt bound it,* I now myself uncomfortable position having dissent actually serves curtail decision. 19 feel compelled 'retroactivity' ruling makes today indefensible. Were free so, entitled being direct review my 256, 1038, 601 retroactivity am judge confines appear overruled done 'guidelines' 'persons begun 1966,' 734, 1781, handed down. Today, holds persons original decided. impossible discern rationale solid basis distinction drawn. states 'an aborted.' Ante, 219. too believe desire interfere concluded way lay core 732—3 1780—1782. seem require subsequent contrary mandated When set aside grounds retried, hypothesis 'conviction obtained' might 'needlessly aborted' standards. There ongoing strategy premised confession rules. left unpersuaded Court's impose intolerable 'evidentiary burden' prosecutors, ignores fact very whenever reason another substantially delayed its carried beyond cut-off date. Apart propositions just discussed, offers nothing justification trial-retrial general observation 'technique' necessarily entails 'incongruities' tolerated effected.' 218. surely incumbent endeavor keep such minimum. can turning backs AD HOC so far characterized field proceeding administer doctrine Desist, What leads me again, see ibid., urge come fresh look whole retroactivity. 24 reverse Delaware. less frank say cast vote reluctance, feeling about unsoundness 'retrial' used refer onl conduct 1966, day remaining contentions adequately resolved below. Jenkins State, At least eight including decline Worley, 37 Ill.2d 439, 227 746 (1967) (dictum); Boone Md.App. 11, 237 787 (Md.Ct.Sp.App.) (dictum), cert. Md.Ct.App. denied, 872, 161, 141 Chapman 282 Minn. 162 N.W.2d 698 129 Lewis, 274 N.C. 438, 164 S.E.2d 177 (1968) Murphy 221 Tenn. 351, 426 S.W.2d 509 nine States indicated dicta retrials. Smith Ala. 268, 210 So.2d 826 Brock, 101 Ariz. 168, 416 P.2d (1966); Doherty, 67 Cal.2d 9, 59 Cal.Rptr. 857, 429 (1967); Ruiz, 49 Haw. 504, 421 305 Dell 249 Ind. 231, 231 522 McCarther, 197 Kan. 279, 290 Creech Commonwealth, 412 245 (Ct.App.Ky.1967); Shoffner, 31 Wis.2d 412, 143 458 (1966). Bradshaw, R.I. 233, 237, n. 1, 815, 817, expressly declined pass nevertheless suggested Appeals Seventh Circuit applicable, Phillips, 401 F.2d 301 (C.A.7th Cir. 1968); supported circuits. ex rel. Walker Young, 675 (C.A.9th Government Virgin Islands Lovell, 378 799, 802, (C.A.3d 1967); Gibson 363 F2 d (C.A.5th 1966). Without discussion, Fourth appears implication. Moorer South Carolina, 368 C.A.4th E.g., 320 Post-Miranda Retrials Pre-Miranda Defendants, 25 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 108, 109 Our decision-making undergone modification. Compare (1965), 1030 (1969). With placing increasing emphasis proscribed; and, recently, reliance. addition fundamental enunciated latest obviated administrative problem, experience, therefore, confirmed Schaefer's observation: 'Sound growth promoted erratic results avoided focusing attention element justifies technique. Even always agreement quality particular limitation. area disaffection narrowed measured reliance.' 631, 646 refused retrial, noted: 'The brutal assault 1955—more previous 1955 warned accordance requirements prevailing.' N.C.App. 296, 297 298, 161 497, 499 supra (discretion abused admitting unduly 'prejudicial' evidence); ('plain error' court's finding); (insufficient corroboration accomplice's testimony). 1643, concurring Orozco Texas, 324, 327, 1095, 1097, 311 purposes holding, immaterial treats see, completely proceeds former occurred. subject conviction. A free, course, finds persuasive,

Category: 0