Legal Document

429 U.S. 28 97 Supreme Court Reporter 202 50 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 194 Terrell Don HUTTO, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correctionv.Andrew Jackson ROSS. Number 75-1726. Nov. 1, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 In March 1972, in Johnson County, Ark., respondent was charged by information with the crime embezzlement. With assistance counsel, entered into plea negotiations prosecuting attorney, and parties reached an agreement that would enter a guilty on understanding prosecutor recommend 15-year prison sentence, 10 years suspended. Approximately two weeks later, attorney asked respondent's counsel whether be willing to make statement concerning crimes.1 Although advised his Fifth Amendment privilege informed him terms negotiated bargain were available regardless willingness comply attorney's request, agreed confessing charged. The record discloses made under oath office present, after had been rights Miranda versus Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966).2 2 Respondent subsequently withdrew from bargain, retained new demanded jury trial. trial court ruled, hearing evidence outside presence jury, confessed voluntarily. admitted at trial, convicted sentenced 21 years' imprisonment. On appeal, affirmed. Ross State, 257 Ark. 44, 514 South Western Reporter, 2nd 409 (1974). This denied certiorari. 421 931, 95 1658, 44 88 (1975). 3 then filed petition for writ habeas corpus District challenging state court's finding voluntariness. Code KF62 § 2254. held evidentiary hearing, May 23, 1975, petition, agreeing confession voluntary therefore admissible. Mobley ex rel. Meek, 394 F.Supp. 1219 4 Appeals Eighth Circuit reversed, inadmissible because "it . connection offer plead (plea) upon." 531 Federal 924, 926 (1976). It no difference, view, not express precondition bargain; became "part parcel" "(the) (not) have request prosecution but bargain." Ibid. (emphasis added). Since executed, found involuntary inadmissible. 5 (1, 2) only question this case is per se criminal it subsequent upon did call such confession.3 We conclude erred when any as result 6 reasoned "as bargain" "but Id., 927, 926. But causation sense has never test See Brady States, 397 742, 749-750, 90 1463, 1469, 25 747 (1970). " 'extracted sort threats or violence, (or) obtained direct implied promises, however slight, exertion improper influence.' Bram 168 532, 542-543, 18 183, 187, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897); see supra, U.S., 753, S.Ct., 1471. existence may well decision give statement, clear he could enforce confessed. thus does appear 'any promises' coercion part prosecution, involuntary. 186-187. 7 certiorari granted, judgment remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 8 Mr. Justice STEWART dissents. Agreeing reasoning Appeals, affirm its judgment. 9 so ordered. Counsel testified federal order complete file actually what occurred how (respondent) took money used it." Record 37. response questions meeting, said promised anything return making confession. 1219, 1221-1222 (W.D.Ark.1975). involve admissibility withdrawn leave court. That issue settled Kercheval 274 220, 47 582, 71 1009 (1927), which pleas guilt Nor trials statements during negotiation process. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 11(e)(6); Moulder 154 Ind.App. 248, 289 North Eastern 522 (1972); American Bar Association Project Standards Criminal Justice, Pleas Guilty 3.4 (Approved Draft 1968).

Classification Label: 0