Legal Document

431 U.S. 181 97 Supreme Court Reporter 1814 52 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 238 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Gregory V. WASHINGTON. Number 74-1106. Argued Dec. 6, 1976. Decided May 23, 1977. Syllabus Respondent, who was suspected, with others, of possible implication in a theft, subpoenaed to appear as witness before the District Columbia grand jury investigating crime. The prosecutor did not advise respondent his appearance that he might be indicted for but given series warnings after being sworn, including warning had right remain silent. Respondent nevertheless testified, and subsequently theft. trial court granted respondent's motion suppress testimony quash indictment on ground it based evidence obtained violation Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Appeals affirmed suppression order, holding "the most significant failing advising (respondent) potential defendant" "(a)nother shortcoming prosecutor's waiting until administering oath cloister undertaking furnish what advice given." Held : Respondent's may properly used him subsequent trial. comprehensive received, whether or such were constitutionally required, dissipated any element compulsion self-incrimination otherwise have been present. fact is putative defendant neither impairs nor enlarges constitutional rights, hence unnecessary give held required. Pp. 186-190. 328 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd 98, reversed remanded. William Federal KF105 F3 Sheehan, III, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Frederick Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Weisberg, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented this case by suspected wrongdoing later prosecution substantive criminal offense when informed advance danger indictment.1 2 (1) 3 facts are dispute. Zimmerman Woodard driving van truck D.C., policeman stopped them traffic offense. Seeing motorcycle rear which identified stolen, officer arrested both men impounded vehicle. When came reclaim van, told police friends permission. 4 He explained presence stolen saying while himself assist an unknown motorcyclist whose machine broken down. then allowed placed take repairs. Soon stalled walked nearby gasoline station call help, leaving motorcyclist. After reaching phone, waited at friends, returned spot left they failed appear; time disappeared. said alarmed, assuming repaired driven away. Shortly thereafter, van. 5 Not surprisingly, whom related tale more than little skeptical; believe story, advised repeat court, "because you're liable trouble if you (do so)." also declined release repeated story Assistant Attorney working case. prosecutor, too, dubious account; nevertheless, released At same time, served subpoena 6 appeared jury, charge yet decided seek him. aware explanation, possibility could theft believed. 7 connection motorcycle. But respondent, reciting usual tell truth, other warnings, follows: 8 "Q . 9 "You You required say anything us Grand Jury answer question.2 10 "Anything can 11 talk lawyer we outside during questioning. 12 "If cannot afford want one will provided you. 13 questions now without present still stop answering time. 14 lawyer. 15 "Now, do understand those sir? 16 "A Yes, & N Immigration Nationality Decisions do. 17 And reference found your truck? 18 sir. 19 here room questions? 20 No, don't think so." 21 In response questions, again version how Subsequently, Zimmerman, larceny receiving property. 22 moved indictment, arguing Superior suppressed dismissed Government use trial, first demonstrate knowingly waived Notwithstanding described earlier, no effective waiver made, rights. thought Constitution minimum, 23 "inquiry made suspect determine educational background is, formal education understands fully consequences result event does waive make incriminatory statements ." 24 should lead testifying, convict prosecution. 25 order. 98 (1974).3 That took position defendant. Another Id., 100.4 26 (2) 27 implicit premise Appeals' inquiry, like custodial interrogation, "interrogation persons accused crime (that) contains inherently compelling pressures work undermine individual's resist compel speak where would so freely." Miranda versus Arizona, 384 436, 467, 86 1624 (1966). has setting presents coercive elements witnesses incriminate themselves. Nor whatever witnesses; moreover, occasion decide these matters today, even exerts some generally indicted, received plainly satisfied claim warnings. Accordingly, 28 Although well settled extends proceedings, Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892), axiomatic automatically preclude self-incrimination, spontaneous put government officials. "It from testifying voluntarily him," Monia, 317 424, 427, 63 409, 410, 87 376 (1943), "those competent freewilled whole world, themselves included." Kimball, 117 156, 163 (CCSDNY 1902); accord, Miranda, supra, U.S., 478, S.Ct., 1629; Michigan Tucker, 417 433, 94 2357, 41 182 (1974); Hoffa States, 385 293, 408, 374 Indeed, far prohibited Constitution, admissions guilt wrongdoers, coerced, desirable. addition guaranteeing silent unless immunity granted, proscribes only "genuine testimony." 440, 2361. Absent officially coerced self-accusation, violated damning admissions. record reveals compulsion, incriminating conflict guarantees privilege.5 29 prohibit every influences See Garner 424 648, 96 1178, 47 370 (1976); Beckwith 425 341, 1612, 48 Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 223-227, 93 2041, 2045-2047, 36 854 (1973). Of course, many engenders atmosphere conducive truth telling, likely upon brought body neighbors fellow citizens, having under solemn feel obliged just that. offend less surroundings. guarantee self-incriminating testimony. test whether, considering totality circumstances, free overborne. Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 544, 81 735, 741, 760 (1961). 30 (3) 31 explicitly It inconceivable fail alert refuse This eliminated exist. To suggest ignore reality. seems self-evident curious posture complain answers compelled. Moreover, coercion unfairness resulting witness' misimpression must truthfully aspects completely removed here. Even presumed psychologically require additional simply because defendant; indeed, suspects defendants often not. Binder, 453 805, 810 (CA2 1971), cert. denied, 407 920, 92 2458, 32 805 (1972). points out unlike subject arrest inform too clearly defendant, unaware targeted While situations, overdrawn generalization. case, events notice knew involvement known authorities. abundantly exculpatory disbelieved officer, innocence own supported, prosecuted interview implausible accepted true. further liability. sum, testified better anyone else status. 33 However, all largely irrelevant, since disadvantage failure possibly inflict witness, firmly prospect entitle commit perjury, targets protected compulsory extent are. Because target status diminishes protection potential-defendant add nothing value 34 suggests prevail supra. There, petitioner charged gambling conspiracy. As part its introduced Garner's income tax returns, occupation "professional gambler," reported substantial wagering. recognized indeed law file return, constitute noted privilege, instead making disclosure professional gambler. holds Self-Incrimination Clause compels disclosures knows declarant intentionally places individual "compulsions incriminate, merely compulsions unprivileged disclosures." 657, 1184. distinction between disclose entitled know help respondent; there either. shortly Garner, reaffirmed need showing overbearing prerequisite violation. agent interrogated taxpayer explicit purpose securing information here, interrogation conducted setting; rejected.6 (4) 37 Since given, called insufficient "in jury." 100. gave reason view advances two justifications. First, late, short assimilate their significance, jurors. contend event, purely speculative attribute effects immediately taking stand. If anything, proximity solemnity seem increase effectiveness. 38 Second, argues giving undermines assertion placing fear infer invocation privilege. argument entirely overlooks jury's historic role investigative body; final arbiter innocence. proceeding admissible actually stake. 39 judgment reversed, cause remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 40 Reversed BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 42 general rule affirmatively my admit exception interrogates express getting base silence suffice. emptied substance Only intelligently waives submits sanctioned. stated Mandujano, 564, 598-600, 1768, 1787 (1976) (concurring judgment): 43 "I hold that, absence intentional intelligent probable measured objective standard committing crime, judicial testify regard waiver, requires fashion unavailable Such readily demonstrated proof warned prior questioning currently commission 44 although Washington rights "only needed prosecuting occupants impoundment." 100 (1974). never himself, though "at considered prosecution." Ante, 186 n. 4. 45 ancient precious shield high-handed arrogant inquisitorial practices. survived centuries controversies, periodically kindled popular impatience sometimes allows guilty escape punishment. endured wise necessary arbitrary power, price occasional failures justice paid larger interest personal security. 46 warn fatal unmistakably appear, inquiry became investigation directed pursued indict voluntary gross encroachment render worthless values pursuant valid indictment. remarked today's decision applies application secured Constitution.* affect authority state courts construe counterpart provisions constitutions identically phrased "to greater provided" federal provision. State Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 353, 346 66, 67-68 (1975). Brennan, Constitutions Protection Individual Rights, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 489 (1977). A number privileged State's using procure introduce affirmative See, e. g., People Laino, N.Y.2d 161, 218 N.Y.S.2d 647, 176 North Eastern 571 (1961); Fary, 431, 437-438, 499, 503 (1955); Taylor Commonwealth, 274 Ky. 51, 118 South Western 140 (1938); Corteau, 198 Minn. 270 Northwestern KF135 N69 144 (1936); Culbreath State, Ala.App. 143, 113 Southern S69 465 (1927). cases Annot., Privilege Against Self-incrimination Testimony Jury, American Law Reports, 225, 290-294 (1954). One specifically interrogating "under (the) guise examining someone else" defendant's Cochran, 313 Ill. 508, 526, 145 Northeastern N59 207, 214 (1924). Newman, Suspect Jury: Need Constitutional Protection, U.Rich.L.Rev. Comment, Witness' Self-Incrimination, 62 Nw.U.L.Rev. 223 (1967); Meshbesher, Right Counsel F.R.D. 189, 191 rationale decisions find applicable begun becomes deny With 212 (1976), Wong, 174, 1823, 231, witnesses, already convicted perjury basis false obvious overstatement rights; very elicit testimony, answers, contempt powers, except questions. oral handed card containing prescribed 1602, 694 (1966), form acknowledging signed waiver. dismiss however, relying line constituted challenge unconstitutionally evidence. Calandra, 414 338, 613, 561 Blue, 251, 1416, 510 (1966); Lawn 355 339, 78 311, 321 (1958). cross-petition seeking review portion ruling 426 905, 2225, 830 validity issue Though below found, signing waiver-of-rights involuntary full appreciation advised. challenge, disturb, finding saw isolating officers; therefore, established per se barred "compelled." All Miranda's safeguards, designed avoid atmosphere, rest caused isolation custody. Oregon Mathiason, 429 492, 711, 50 714 (1977); 653-654, 1181-1182, 444, 2363. rested solely Amendment, urges Due Process Clause. contends fundamentally unfair informing This, argued, pointedly enable invoke restates claims rejected reasons. governmental misconduct undermined fairness proceedings. * open Appeals, supervisory remand order enforce compliance considers proper procedures Ristaino Ross, 589, 597 9, 1017, 1022, 258 Jacobs, 547 772 1976), pending, 76-1193.

Classification Label: 0