Document: 392 U.S. 616 88 S.Ct. 2258 20 L.Ed.2d 1332 Lucille MILLER, petitioner,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 154. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1967. June 17, 1968 F. Lee Bailey, Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Philip C. Griffin, Los Angeles, Cal., respondent. On Writ Certiorari to District Appeal California, Fourth Appellate District. PER CURIAM. 1 The writ certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS, and BRENNAN join, dissenting. 3 may leave this judgment standing only upon one or more following grounds: that there was no constitutional error in petitioner's trial; whether not error, objection it waived; harmless. None those grounds are persuasive me, I would reverse. 4 facts case follows. A short time after midnight on 8, 1964, husband killed conflagration automobile which he petitioner had been riding. Later day, at about 1:30 p. m., arrested murder, taken a county jail, where she booked charge placed cell. She met jail by lawyer, family friend who called shortly fire. night her arrest spoke police officer several hours answering questions reciting version what claimed have an accidental 5 In attempt prevent questioning his client, counsel set up, associates, 24-hour-a-day watch Thereafter, 11 m. 9, Peggy Fisk, undercover agent employ sheriff's office, falsely into fictitious narcotics Two other prisoners shared cell were later removed. Fisk did advise sheriff report anything might say. remained alone until 15, giving oral reports their conversations from office; written prepared 12 partly 14. 6 13, complaint filed formally charging murder; arraigned day complaint.1 An indictment returned 20, then dismissed. 7 It State's theory trial love husband; drugged him fire; order be free marry Arthwell Hayton collect some $100,000 insurance proceeds. defense fire accidental, rather than incendiary, origin. contended although husband's death affair between them terminated months earlier, given up any thought marrying Hayton, reconciled motivated kill since earned $30,000 year dental practice. 8 prosecution witness testified told murder 'she but respected him'; always loved still loves receive over hundred thousand dollars because death'; 'as soon mess over, planned take [her children] * away Europe money.' 9 district attorney relied emphasized Fisk's testimony argument jury. See infra, 628-629. After deliberating three days, jury verdict guilty first degree. sentenced life imprisonment. I. 10 Although issue difficulty, seems me record clearly reveals adequately raised preserved federal testimony. That arises context. Toward close its chief, witness. Petitioner's immediately objected, before sworn, time, ground address prior testifying promised. There occurred extended conference judge's chambers. chambers, made two objections He discussed presence witness' promised, so interview her. presented extensively all discussing circumstances rise contention citing relevant cases.2 explained why unable provide acknowledged forgotten request, apparently based fact shown, month concerning identified 'Jackie Doe.' attempted distinguish cases cited counsel, elaborated somewhat activities.3 13 As objection, judge said 'in view related Foley [defense counsel] promised opportunity talk witness,' should withdrawn time. agreed withdraw turned objection. disclosed spent almost week cell, without disclosing identity, testify statements call next stated judge, objection: 'You wait listen voir dire stand see.' colloquy, concluding in-chambers conference, ensued: 14 'The Court: [Y]ou will we sworn least preliminary anyway, proper 15 'Mr. Foley: You know isn't right, your Honor. 16 Unless you want look [sheriff's] see knows. Does indicate? 17 Turner [district attorney]: has foundation laid, made. way to—— 18 think be. don't how could done absence jury.' (Emphasis added.) 19 asked questions. having employed previous agent, elicited course employment assigned task pretending prisoner petitioner, became acquainted talked When if 'domestic problems husband,' 'ask question dire.' herself advised present when they talked. Direct examination resumed attorney. her, supra, 618. cross-examination, answers being reporting sheriff, activities (see 626). also and, short, story consistent scene claim innocence. 21 these respondent contends 'obvious' tactical helpful, therefore available here waived. find unacceptable. 22 our decisions Massiah Escobedo valid. 245 Cal.App.2d 112, 144, 53 Cal.Rptr. 720, 740. court reverse conviction viewed nonprejudicial. Ibid. However, went say waived point failing object or, put another way, 'it reasonable assume willing [Fisk] testify' circumstances. Cal.App.2d, 143, Cal.Rptr., 740.4 significant note California specifically disapproved language respect waiver admission evidence obtained violation 'Escobedo-Dorado' mere failure object, People v. Doherty, 67 Cal.2d 14, 59 857, 860, 429 P.2d 177, 180 (1967), same decision cast considerable doubt approach toward presuming assuming considered stratagem.5 23 event, long held right lightly presumed. See, e. g., Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). apprised basis indeed specific supported claim. Surely bypassing state courts issue. 24 Concerning renew appears required raise anew front Fisk. engaged fellow prisoner. motion new trial: defendant unfortunate position forced If sustained, well infer through technicality managed keep out full confession.' Thus most can counsel—having previously objection—preferred admitted objecting identified. Cf. Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 908 (1964); Schader, 62 716, 727-728, 44 193, 200, 401 665, 672 (1965). Placing kind dilemma renewing serves valid purpose. Douglas State Alabama, 380 415, 422, 85 1074, 934 And while indicates law permits establish outside (citing supra), neither import ruling nor 619-620). 25 Since claim, alternatively passed validity cannot reflecting voiced jury, perfectly clear preserved.6 II. 26 Notwithstanding respondent's own placement unconstitutional, attempts defend action grounds, both patently substance. 27 Respondent rights violated, formal against To sure, States, 377 201, 204-206, 1199, 246 (1964), indicted marks adversary process begins. Thus, behalf co-conspirator during former's automobile, violated defendant's Sixth Amendment counsel7 indicated already represented counsel. At honor recognized earlier stage interrogations, namely, when, among things, 'the investigation longer general inquiry unsolved crime begun focus particular suspect. *' Illinois, 478, 490, 1758, 977 (1964). applies here. Petitioner murder. Clearly, fire, committed, it. practical effect criminal proceedings begun, arrest, initial questioning, use office ceased merely cause fire.8 28 Indeed, least, clearer Massiah: unlike there, released bail, custody consequent lack freedom choose companions. like defendants Escobedo, times. Moreover, eliciting information conversing 15.9 29 Both courts, see, Flores, 236 807, 46 412 (1965), cert. denied, 384 1010, 86 1917, 1017 (1966) (jail plant); Ludlum, 813, 375 lower Clifton 341 F.2d 649 (C.A. 5th Cir. 1965), interpreted bars preindictment point, accusatory reached focused subject.10 However defined, 30 'process interrogations,' U.S., 491, designed obtain confession 'deliberately elicited,' 206, 1199. view, acted simply listening post, was, however, rejected itself. Government pointed reveal induced persuasion (there friendship) discuss activities, urged 'providing talk'11 violate Beatty 389 45, 234, 48 reversing 181 Cir.). 31 events, weather, console companionship. Her itself inducement speak, agent. While coercive means, certainly given, light deception, knowing intelligent rights. 32 Furthermore, planted subvert express purpose attempting mouth. occasion, newspaper clipping show accompanying statement, such press 'ruining you.' pursuant instructions, conversation supposedly overheard hall four men attorney's men, ruse went, said: 'Getting back Miller case, came blew top off case.' 'I my trust Bland [the sheriff] maybe do good tried same.' Finally, 'did much good' perhaps suspect hers.12 33 Such deliberate deception subversion condoned. case: 34 'It incredible days enlightened treatment authorities persons charged crime, incident occurred. 35 36 trick hoped incriminating get throw alleged mercy completely indefensible. (245 Cal.App.2d. 141, 143-144, 738, 740.13) 37 agree, egregious Escobedo.14 III. 38 Having concluded properly testimony, rights, turn 'harmless beyond doubt,' Chapman 386 18, 24, 87 824, 705 (1967). decided now review here, normally remand reconsider, conclusion majority refuses decide all, wish regard 39 generally theories Dr. Miller's 617-618). circumstantial.15 So saying, imply necessarily sence weak; does, help indicate motive particularly crucial, central trial. definitely minute Cork [Dr. Miller] gone,' idea approximately death. argued jury: 40 'But that's girl jail. felt come her.' 41 retuttal argument, again testimony: 42 'He says prosecution's entirely surmise conjecture. That's true. 43 'Is conjecture Mrs. infatuated wanted him? 'There disagreement wanting stopped, him. 45 husband? 47 'And, course, custody, tells upstairs Hayton.' 49 each supporting evidence. But mouth, weighty Bram 168 532, 183, 568 (1897); And, quotations above indicate, plainly case. Certainly believed, credible, undermined defense. 50 deliberated reaching verdict. assessing expert causes fires automobiles, weighing experts' incendiary origin defense, accidental. found necessary resolve guilt Or, first-and second-degree innocence degree guilt, even though former theory. important jury's resolution matter. occupied deliberated, am convinced 'beyond 'reasonable possibility complained contributed conviction.' Fahy Connecticut, 85, 86-87, 229, 171 (1963). conviction. issued prohibiting officials unless present, ordered attorneys cease sitting Apparently, inform continued presence. Counsel name discussed, attorney, Dorado, 338, 169, 398 361 latter decision, grounded Federal Constitution, encompasses 'for week,' interrogate seek elicit representation undoubtedly faith conceded incorrect. 626. One factor recited leading conclude desired 'received copy Peggy's superiors talks defendant,' apparently, balance advantages disadvantages. does report, seen strenuously testifying. Doherty said, situation develop (in relation court's Dorado decision), '[i]f sustain burden establishing tactics, treat stratagem objection.' Cal.2d, n. 4, P.2d. 180, 4. Fay Noia, 372 391, 438-440, 83 822, 837 Compare Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 564, 408 applied vacate affirming McLeod Ohio, 582, 1922, 1037 381 356, 1556, 682 Hoffa 385 293, 309-310, 408, 374 (1966). 12, infra. Robinson, A.D.2d 184, 224 N.Y.S.2d (4th Dept. 1962) plant). Note, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 935, 1006 Brief 199, 1963, 30. argues filing prompted incidents inducements speak text above. Of Besides, example, 'which [petitioner] mentioned money you, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th 14th?' answer. deceptive reach result. addition 625) agents Arguello, 63 566, 485, 407 661 trial, began January 11, 1965, effective date Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694 (1966), applicable. New Jersey, 719, 734, 1772, 882 Fontaine 390 593, 1229, 154; cf. Anderson Nelson, 523, 1133, 81.

Category: 0