Legal Document

365 U.S. 534 81 Supreme Court Reporter 735 5 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 760 Harold D. ROGERS, Petitioner,v.Mark S. RICHMOND, Warden. Number 40. Argued Nov. 8 and 9, 1960. Decided March 20, 1961. Messrs. Louis or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Pollak Jacob Zeldes, Bridgeport, Conn., for petitioner. Abraham Ullman, New Haven, Robert C. Zampano, East respondent. Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case has a long history. It must be told with some particularity in order to unravel issues ensnarled protracted litigation both state federal courts, turning essentially on admissibility confessions. 2 The Trial.—Petitioner was found guilty murder by jury Superior Court, Haven County, Connecticut. undisputed evidence leading conviction may briefly told. On January 1954. Connecticut, police arrested petitioner charges committing attempted robbery other crimes that day at local hotel. At time his arrest had possession revolver. Subsequent ballistic tests tended show this weapon, which been reported stolen from home petitioner's nephew, used fatal shooting during liquor store West November 21, 1953, same its disappearance discovered. 3 Petitioner lodged County Jail pending trial prompted arrest. 30, 1954, he transported without court jail office State's Attorney questioning connection killing. interrogation commenced approximately p.m. continued throughout afternoon evening. During allowed smoke, brought sandwich coffee, no subjected violence threat violence. 4 After intermittently questioned success team least three officers p.m., Assistant Chief Police Eagan called conduct investigation. When persisted denial done shooting, pretended, hearing, place telephone call officers, directing them stand readiness bring wife questioning. passage one hour, remained silent. indicated about have taken into custody. point announced willingness confess did statement down shorthand an official reporter. following morning Coroner issued held incommunicado jail. lawyer associated counsel whom previously retained defend him charge see petitioner, turned away authority Coroner's order. then House Coroner, who informed confession previous night. There put oath tell truth but warned might refuse say anything further advised obtain assistance counsel. again confessed recorded 6 Petitioner's defense directed toward discrediting confessions as product coercion. In accordance Connecticut practice, see, e.g., State versus Willis, 71 Conn. 293, 41 Atlantic 820; Guastamachio, 137 179, 75 Reporter, 2nd 429, judge heard bearing present. hearing testified shortly after commencement asked never permitted do so. He also testified, reference Eagen's pretense bringing questioning, move took form so unless making would 'less than man' if failed thereby caused her According suffered arthritis, spare being scene interrogation. 7 met account testimony Eagan. made request presence room. However, it will recalled not arrive until run course six hours claimed requested period. denied framed remarks suggested man,' etc. basis summarized, concluded were voluntary go consideration weight given under all circumstances led them. Conviction followed. 9 Review Court.—On appeal, Errors finding error judge's admission confessions, affirmed conviction, Rogers, 143 167, 120 409. 10 First Federal Habeas Corpus Proceeding,—In August 1956, satisfying rule Darr Burford, 339 200, 70 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, sought writ habeas corpus, basically ground since secured rendering constitutionally inadmsisible, due process law Fourteenth Amendment. District based offered parties. included excerpts record proceedings well various officials. Neither nor respondent submitted entire transcript district it. before opportunity confer lawyer. His flatly contradicted Attorney, none trial. 11 him, findings differed those several important respects. accepted yielded Eagan's efforts confess. fear repudiation earlier lead take foster children Accordingly, 'The result pressure overcoming Rogers' powers resistance part,' ex rel. Rogers Cummings, D.C., 154 F.Supp. 663, 665. therefore set aside judgment conviction. 12 Appeals Review.—On Second Circuit vacated Court's judgment, hold de novo basic evidentiary fact considered adjudicated courts. Relying Brown Allen, 344 443, 73 397, 97 469, should reaching decision. 13 'that now us nature presented proper regard delicate balance federal-state relationships required Judge examine * *. Only adequate can determine vital flaw exists warrants correction extrinsic evidence.' Richmond, Cir., 252 807, 810, 811. 14 remanded instructions: 15 'Unless below shall find thus material deems constitute 'vital flaws' 'unusual circumstances' within meaning we make necessary constitutional determinations exclusively historical facts court.' page 16 Certiorari Proceeding.—The certiorari here petition per curiam opinion: 17 is denied. We read holding while may, finds proceedings, accept determination such need deem binding, testimony. See 506, et seq., 469.' 357 220, 78 1365, 1361. 18 Proceeding.—On remand, dismissed petition. 178 69. While adhered belief first corpus himself obliged court's 'Findings,' rather own, points 'unless unusual circumstance appears outside record.' pages 71—72. 'flaw' 'circumstance' permit retrial issue voluntariness stated position: 19 whether character fully conscientiously tried experienced judge. disagreement weighing similar itself sufficient limitations imposed interest our dual system, matter here.' 73. 20 could 21 Review.—The dissenting. 271 364. correct restricting 'findings' regarding confessing, agreed justify conclusion peititioner's voluntary. 22 Because concerning appropriate procedure dealing petitions relation convictions urged, here. 361 959, 80 605, 541. 23 A critical analysis leads disposition more immediate issue. For compels admitting 'voluntary,' affirming entered, apply standard demanded Due Process Clause Amendment determining confession. 24 Our decisions clear are involuntary, i.e., coercion, either physical psychological, cannot stand. because unlikely true methods extract offend underlying principle enforcement criminal law: ours accusatorial inquisitorial system—a system establish guilt independently freely coercion prove against accused out own mouth. Chambers Florida, 309 227, 60 472, 84 716; Lisenba People California, 314 219, 236, 62 280, 289, 86 166; Rochin 342 165, 172—174, 72 205, 209—210, 96 183; Spano York, 360 315, 320—321, 79 1202, 1205 1206, 1265; Blackburn Alabama, 199, 206—207, 274, 279—280, 242. And Watts Indiana, 338 49, 54—55, 69 1347, 1350, 1357, 93 1801. To sure, cruelly extorted been, unascertained extent, untrustworthy. But excluding does rest consideration. Indeed, many cases command compelled reverse involving use obtained impermissible methods, independent corroborating left little doubt what defendant confessed. Despite verification, their inducement. Since pressures which, subjected, constrained procedures afford guarantees. 25 present case, ruled each 'freely voluntarily accordingly admissible evidence,' reached considerations undermine validity. 'had tendency produce accord truth.' Again, jury, enunciated reasoning guided consideration: 26 'No influence promises threats. procured employment artifice deception exclude calculated, say, calculated procure untrue statement. motive person confessing importance provided particular threats, persons actual seeming authority. object get truth, trick device except render inadmissible rules surround designed operation desire expressed confession, used, probably confession.' 27 view—that probable reliability entered sustaining confession: 28 'If concede (petitioner's claims illegal removal detention) unlawful, not, standing alone, defendant's inadmissible. question whether, these induced falsely committed crime investigated. Unless did, said illegality vitiated confessions.' 173, 412. again: 29 'Proper authorization removed nothing removal, however, demonstrate forced refusal admit 31 coroner.' 173—174, 30 Concerning feigned phone headquarters, concluded: 'Here again, decide involuntary hence statement.' 174, 32 From fair reading expressions, conclude answered legal falsity.1 permissible attention focused, purposes Constitution, behavior officials overbear resist self-determined—a complete disregard spoke truth. instead, Errors, infected inclusion references resulted invalid pursuant detained 'in violation Constitution.'2 right according substantive procedural requirements means involved only screening standards. extent standards departed requirements, unconstitutionally dimension.3 33 any appraisal significance gleaned barred speculating—it irrational process—about attributed falsity entering deliberations distorted, putting improper perspective, even fact. Any 'reliability' element precluded, precisely force carried known. 34 As abstract logic arguable deprived right, custody Code KF62 § 2241(c)(3), Annotated KF65 U5 solely applied confession—that deprived, held, fact' coerced, 'fact' ascertained direct review here, proceedings. Such view ignores volatile amorphous distributive functions judicial federalism application coerced coming directly highest had, look undisputed, uncontested record. 498 50—52, 1348—1349, to, absence detailed state-court fact, sit tribunal hear assess credibility witnesses. Of course, so-called blended they severed event, there foundation result. Thompson City Louisville, 362 624, 654. With considerations, manifestly unfair, niggardly protection rights, sustain jury—whichever charged duty pertinent claim coercion—passes upon erroneous law.4 wholly evidence, event conflicting presented, deprive benefit whatever credit employed standard. Nor, where specific allegedly coercive circumstances, fairly looked 'facts,' often (to known) influenced finder looking for. Historical 'found' perspective plausibly expected furnish conclusions merely later 35 raised alternative method proceeding impossible available. conceivably neither adequately protect rights defendants duly large leeway administration justice. determinative conform Where consider certain abstraction whole, living complex trial, perhaps years occurrence events surrounding establishing hand, State, too, weighty having valid criteria courts juries. require exercising jurisdiction attempt combine trial—to ask approximate sympathies peers rulings make, exercise discretion borderline permissibility—is potentially prejudice claiming pre-empt belong machinery law. 36 view, therefore, inadequate test given, record, manner pressed law.5 us, misconstrued applicable Constitution sustained doing Connecticut's affirm corpus. give retry light opinion, reasonable time. default thereof discharged. 37 Reversed. 38 STEWART, CLARK joins, 39 Although free doubt, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions gave voluntary.* proposition entitled release way courts' failure properly verbalize admissibility. Cf. Stroble 343 181, 599, 872. 40 extended laws treaties States.' 2241(c) (3), 2241(c)(3). Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 465—468, 58 1019, 1023 1024, 82 1461; Hawk Olson, 326 271, 274—276, 66 116, 118—119, 90 61. context granted, if, admitted Leyra Denno, 347 556, 74 716, 98 948. think, deciding inquiry purported apply, would, remand plenary question. Where, partly affected factor reliability, think hearing. enunciate dimensions, unquestioning reliance Even most narrow circumstances. support line cases, cited Rogers. 307—312, 820, 824—826; Cross, 722, 727, 46 148, 150; DiBattista, 110 549, 563, 148 664, 669; Palko, 121 669, 680, 186 857, 662; Tomassi, 113, 127—128, 67, 74; 182, 431; Lorain, 141 694, 700, 109 504, 507. Wakefield, 88 164, 230; Castelli, 92 58, 101 476; Zukauskas, 132 450, 45 289; Buteau, 136 68 681; Malm, 142 111 685, containing 'truth-falsity' test. promises, 'artifices,' 'deception' practices amounting uncertainty. endeavor ascertain generally criterion, alone conjunction criteria, If convicted through standard, indifferent law, unimpeachable. What reveal relevance conceptions appear still judges classes similarities relied therein. Without validity reasoning, Amendment, applications, derive currency continuing confirmation language mere verbal inadvertence unreflective phraseology, accurate embodiment mode 'voluntary.' Determination is, procedure. determinable judge, determined misdirected wrong standards; decided misdirect himself. different implicitly instructions made, defined 'voluntariness' process. Lyons Oklahoma, 322 596, 601, 64 1208, 1211, 1481. Thus, verdict rendered. An interjected level California. Had reversed reason misinterpretation principles governing certiorari, jury's reinstated. faced squarely, illuminating isolation, case. Compare Lee Mississippi, 332 742, 300, 330, Stroble. deal situation record—taking inferences reasonably drawn it, favorable nevertheless fails gone whole testimony, clearly prejudiced allowing jury. plays part follows orthodox leaving McCarthy, 133 171, 177, 49 594, 597; 699, Stein 346 156, 1077, 1522. admitted, weigh truthfulness weighs evidence.

Classification Label: 0