Legal Document

384 U.S. 719 86 Supreme Court Reporter 1772 16 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 882 Sylvester JOHNSON and Stanley Cassidy, Petitioners,v.STATE OF NEW JERSEY. Number 762. Argued March 1 2, 1966. Decided June 20, Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, See 87 12. [Syllabus from pages 719-720 intentionally omitted] Stanford Shmukler, Philadelphia, Pa., M. Gene Haeberle, Camden, N.J., for petitioners. Norman Heine, respondent. [Amicus Curiae 720-721 Duane R. Nedrud, National District Attorneys Ass'n, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. (Also in Nos. 759, 760 584) Opinion the Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, announced BRENNAN. In this case we are called upon to determine whether Escobedo versus State Illinois, 378 478, 84 1758, 12 977 (1964), Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694, should be applied retroactively. We hold that affects only those cases which trial began after 22, 1964, date decision. further applies our decision one week ago. The convictions assailed here were obtained at trials completed long before rendered, rulings therefore inapplicable present proceeding. Petitioners have also asked us overturn their on a number other grounds, but find these contentions without merit, consequently affirm below. 2 Petitioner Cassidy was taken into custody New Jersey, 4 a.m. January 29, 1958, felony murder. police took him detective headquarters interrogated systematic fashion several hours. At 9 he brought chief detective, two officers, court stenographer. introduced persons present, informed possible charges against him, gave warning set forth margin,1 concluded understood warning, his consent questioned. then until 10:25 made partial confession stenographer recorded interrogation read it back acknowledgment. Police officers another part building apparently questioned further. 12:15 p.m. detective's office half hour interrogation. Under circumstances similar already described, amended add vital incriminating details. For next 11 hours held detention room may been subjected questioning. 11:40 returned final brief round Taken together, Cassidy's three formal statements added up complete murder, they later crime. 3 While collateral proceeding pending following Escobedo, filed affidavits Jersey detailed first time certain supposed confession. own affidavit, claimed least five separate occasions during interrogation, permission consult lawyer or contact relatives. allegedly either ignored requests told could not communicate with others statement completed. produced mother, uncle, aunt, claiming period times once appeared there person, seeking information about an opportunity speak him. Their efforts thwarted police. These belated claims left uncontroverted accepted as true below purposes issue. petitioner Johnson Newark, 5 same crime Cassidy. He booked. Later evening magistrate preliminary hearing. record is unclear what transpired there. Both appearance court, routine manner. drove auto scene homicide, 80 miles Newark. During ride again Upon arrival Camden 4:30 a.m., directly As case, given forth. stated willing under conditions. 6:20 one-half course questioning, full This Like detailing four points described above, relatives so obtain had statement. mother girl friend, homicide prior confession, went rebuffed claims, like Cassidy's, resolution 6 confessions offered evidence joint judge hearing out presence jury voluntariness confessions. no effort rebut testimony adduced relating found voluntary admitted them evidence. expressly relinquished right state law issue voluntariness, accompanying evidence, submitted redetermination.2 They did introduce any dispute correctness 7 summation close trial, defense counsel explicitly asserted truthful pleaded leniency ground. jury: 8 'Whatever true. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions know * (M)y reason knowing because meetings consultations Stanley. over many, many times. 'I Dube, Dube fine interrogator. If you do answer truthfully, believe me, will question does get truth, got truth.' Likewise Johnson's 10 'The honest, when finished, end it. 'There threats. There attempt evade. trickery. Anything answered honestly truthfully.' guilty murder degree recommendation mercy, sentenced death.3 13 became six years ago, affirmed direct appeal4 expired petitioners seek certiorari followed battery attacks federal courts based new factual allegations, repeatedly unsuccessfully confessions.5 arises still application post-conviction relief, accompanied fresh argued inadmissible principles Escobedo. rejected claim, holding affect become decision,6 principally review. view standards ago concerning warnings must in-custody obliges accorded retroactive application. 14 past year twice dealt problem retroactivity connection constitutional rules criminal procedure. Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 601 (1965); Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 459, 15 453 (1966). establish principle litigation 'the interest justice make rule prospective where exigencies situation require such application.' U.S., 628, S.Ct., 1737; 410, 461. delineate criteria resolved. look purpose governing reliance placed decisions subject, effect administration Miranda. 636, 1741; 413, 464. declined apply retroactively laid down Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), through unreasonable search seizure excluded proceedings. holding, relied fact affected reliability relevancy questioned.' 639, 1743. give Griffin California, 380 609, 1229, 106 (1965), forbade prosecutors judges comment adversely failure defendant testify trial. reaching result, noted basic discourage penalizing use privilege self-incrimination. 414, acknowledged, however, procedure recent years, different guarantees involved. example, Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963), concerned indigent advice reviewed denial habeas corpus. Similarly, Jackson Denno, 368, 1774, 908 involved accused effective exclusion involuntary itself attack. each instance justified very integrity fact-finding process' averted clear danger convicting innocent.' 1743; 416, 465. 17 stress choice between nonretroactivity way turns value guarantee represented supra, has Schaefer Illinois 'by far most pervasive (o)f all rights person has.'7 Yet Brandeis even more boldly characterized immunity unjustifiable intrusions privacy, denied enforcement comprehensive valued civilized men.'8 To reiterate said Linkletter, disparage manner declining 629, 1737. 18 automatically determined provision Constitution dictate based. Each its distinct functions, background precedent, impact justice, factors combine inevitably vary Accordingly suggest, 'in case' looking peculiar traits specific 'rule question.' 19 Finally, emphasize enhance process necessarily matter degree. likely highly persuasive jury, if coerced well untrustworthy nature.9 On hand, despite sometimes mislead reasons why refused take witness stand. thus probabilities account, among factors, extent safeguards available protect truth-determining 20 Having mind cases, turn now presented here: retroactively.10 Our opinion makes prime effectuation self-incrimination, mainstay adversary system justice. Pages 458—466, 1619—1624. designed assure who responds while intelligent understanding remain silent consequences flow relinquishing respect secure scrupulous observance traditional principle, often quoted rarely heeded degree, suffer prisoner deluded instrument conviction.'11 Thus guard possibility unreliable every incustody encompass situations great overt obvious coercion. 21 time, whose completed, providing procedural prerequisites attack met. Fay Noia, 391, 822, 837 (1963). Prisoners invoke substantive test which, persistence abusive practices, increasingly meticulous years. Reck Pate, 433, 1541, 948 (1961). That takes account advise self-incrimination allow access outside assistance. Haynes Washington, 373 503, 1336, 513 (1963); Spano People York, 360 315, 79 1202, 1265 (1959). entitled anew aspect fair afforded them. Townsend Sain, 293, 745, 770 provide important preclude invoking involuntariness claim. 22 Nor would justifiable curing errors committed disregard clearly foreshadowed. pointed above treated warn rights, grant assistance, tending prove resulting supra; supra. Prior Miranda, condemn entire solely conduct Crooker 357 78 1287, 1448 (1958); Cicenia La Gay, 504, 1297, 1523 (1958). Law agencies fairly longer binding, obtaining intervening preceding favorable comparison 1684 knew constitutionally forbidden engaging searches seizures Wolf Colorado, 338 25, 69 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). 23 seriously disrupt laws. It retrial release numerous prisoners trustworthy conformity previously standards. few enforced compulsion local assistance Compare 448, n. 4, 1296 (dissenting opinion). By comparison, majority immediately 1229 (1965). 418, 466. 24 light various considerations, conclude remains shall appeal decided commence begun announced. holdings limited rendered. established discussion 622 1237; 409, 3, apart parties applying prospectively yet open 25 All making nonretroactive suggest Future defendants benefit fully avail themselves test. notice violation used accused. Prospective particularly appropriate here. Authorities attempting apprised heretofore obligatory. Consequently adopted devices although minimum, intentional evasions requirements privilege. circumstances, upset impose burden 26 extend tried announced, though appeal. introductory cited therein, jurisprudential obstacles adopting 622—629, 1733—1737. judicial wholly England Louisiana Board Medical Examiners, 375 411, 461, 440 (1964); James States, 366 213, 1052, 246 shown sound accommodation 27 additional commenced recognize perceived implications anticipated Of course, entirely free effectuate stricter than broader range required 28 Apart broad implications, precise elicited 29 '(where) investigation general inquiry unsolved focus particular suspect, suspect custody, carry interrogations lends eliciting statements, requested lawyer, effectively warned absolute *.' 490—491, 1765. 30 Because prospectively, decided. 31 persuaded measure prospectivity date. Defendants strict doctrines disagreements Escobedo,12 impelled lay guidelines case. done 13, relation Malloy Hogan, 1, 1489, 653 32 challenge validity examined care, including claim coerced. unnecessary grounds tested review judgment merit. petitioners' beyond scope 33 Petitioners' litigated both hearings courts. neither occasion, substantiate allegations assert prevented being interrogated. families friends kind relevant presents retroactivity. Davis North Carolina, 737, 1761, 895. 34 invoked rule, bar reconsideration regarding N.J.Rev.Rules 3:10A—5 (1965 Supp.); Smith, 43 N.J. 67, 202 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd 669 (1964). adequate ground precludes testing review, whatever significance court's corpus 822 35 affirmed. 36 Affirmed. 37 CLARK concurs adheres, views 499, 1640. 38 HARLAN, STEWART, WHITE concur continue believe, dissenting opinions Harlan White Arizona companion 526, 1643, 1655, promulgated unjustified unwise. 39 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS joins, dissents Court's protections Fifth Sixth Amendments construed Page substantially 640, am going ask some questions hold-up, my duty everything tell me your will, promises threats having you, anything can future time.' prescribed outlined follows: 'Under admission voluntary. finds voluntary, hence admissible, instructs consider unless proves voluntarily given.' 572, 586, 9, 206 744—745, 9. A third defendant, Wayne Godfrey, death. His conviction subsequently overturned non vult life imprisonment. Johnson, 489, 158 (1960). 63 N.J.Super. 16, 163 593 (1960), aff'd, 212, 168 cert. denied, 368 933, 82 370, 195 (1961); Yeager, 327 Federal 311 (C.A.3d Cir.), 377 984, 1890, 751 71 506, 177 312, 19, 179 370 928, 1572, 508 (1962). 737. Federalism Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv.L.Rev. (1956). Olmstead 277 438, 48 564, 72 944 (1928) Coerced are, regardless alleged truth falsity. Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 735, appears supreme appeals discussed tenets see re Lopez, 62 Cal.2d 42 Cal.Rptr. 188, 398 Pacific Ruark People, Colo., 405 Commonwealth Negri, 419 Pa. 117, 213 670 Walden 350 240 (C.A.7th Cir. 1965). commentators, divided Mishkin, Forward: High Court, Great Writ, Due Process Time Law, 56 opposes application, Comment, Retroactivity Problem 64 Mich.L.Rev. 832 Hawkins, Pleas Crown 595 (8th ed. 1824). compare Dorado, 338, 169, 361 Dufour, R.I., construe broadly, Hartgraves, Ill.2d 375, Eastern Browne State, Wis.2d 491, 129 Western 175, 131 169

Classification Label: 0