Legal Document

391 U.S. 346 88 Supreme Court Reporter 1488 20 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 630 Roy Federal KF105 F3 DARWINv.CONNECTICUT. Number 794, Misc. Decided May 20, 1968. John Shea, Jr., for petitioner. Joel or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Reed II and Etalo G. Gnutti, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder sentenced to life imprisonment. The Connecticut affirmed the judgment. 155 Conn. 124, 230 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd 573 (1967). seeks a writ certiorari from this Court. We grant reverse. 2 On Friday, December 6, 1963, petitioner arrested on coroner's warrant charging him with murder. During that entire day until 9 p.m. subjected questioning. Some time evening, officer in charge brought revolving disc sought persuade look at it 'relax.' trial judge said '(the officer) not completely unaware common hypnotic device.' wheel turned about half an hour, but refused it. 3 next morning questioning resumed continued intermittently 4 when fell forward, according judge, 'either fainting pretending faint.' He revived then confessed murder, as hereinafter described, response by charge. period custody, his counsel had been making determined unsuccessful efforts contact him. there were 19 phone calls various police offices, including nine one which held. Saturday, five calls, Sunday, one. 5 personal visit lawyers barracks Stafford Springs where taken morning. But same arrived, took drove around, apparently protect what thought newspapermen.1 Counsel made four visits Saturday. 6 Each these attempts met disclaimers knowledge whereabouts either found 'routine procedure' investigating officers be disturbed during investigation. At 1:30 counsel's request, superior court issued habeas corpus. A deputy sheriff instructed serve upon coroner within hour. could locate coroner, although purpose inquiry stated communications Hartford barracks. called search received call informing would p.m.2 7 Petitioner's first confession, orally after 'fainting' incident afternoon 7, arrest interrogation, excluded evidence judge. also petitioner's written confession shortly thereafter. however, admitted subsequent 8, partial re-enactment crime staged request police. course reenactment, petitioner, he done denied committed crime. affirmed. 8 Since case began before decisions Escobedo versus State Illinois, 378 478, 84 1758, 12 977 (1964), Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), cases are controlling. Johnson New Jersey, 719, 1772, 882 (1966). they relevant issue voluntariness. Davis North Carolina, 737, 1761, 895 In present case, numerous communicate (Cf. supra, U.S., 465, n. 35, S.Ct., 1623.) corpus state fruitless; three separate occasions permission outside world. inference is inescapable kept incommunicado 30 48 hours finally obtained confession. See 745—746, 1766—1767; Haynes Washington, 373 503, 83 1336, 10 513 (1963). Considering 'totality circumstances' (see Clewis Texas, 386 707, 87 1338, 18 423 (1967)), we conclude erred holding voluntary. denial access world throughout, 'no break stream events' throughout concededly invalid confessions 'sufficient insulate' final events 'from effect all went before.' 710, 1340. Beecher Alabama, 389 36, 2, 189, 190, 35 Accordingly, motion leave proceed forma pauperis petition granted. judgment below reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent our decision herein. 11 Reversed remanded. Mr. Justice WHITE dissents. 13 HARLAN, concurring part dissenting part. 14 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions am unable agree basis reverses conviction. courts conducted careful conscientious review surrounding confessions. If question simply whether third 'coercively extracted, vote affirm. cannot join seems me no more than substitution its view close factual courts. 15 special element present. ruled prosecution burden proving two voluntarily made. It Court, affirming, evaluated rules applied other two; finding atmosphere changed enough tip balance favor voluntariness, admissible. do think reflected proper approach problem multiple principal reason why suspect might make that, having already once twice, has little lose repetition. shown voluntary, later merely direct product earlier should held neither conducive good work, nor fair suspect, allow erroneous impression nothing play major role defendant's speak time. 17 consequence, use uttered has, my view, only itself improper threats promises coercive conditions, directly produced existence Bayer, 331 532, 540—541, 67 1394, 1398—1399, 91 L.Ed. 1654. Here, facts fail satisfy additional burden. followed completion inadmissible few hours.* interval appears have talked except jailors coroner. There indication any increase peril. hold wrong standard remand proceedings, order give opportunity show cat out bag. When initially arrested, asked telephone permitted so. specifically knew represented inquest just arrest, Sunday inform presentment did know retainer engaged inquest. * This indicates occurred Saturday Sunday. fact, completed signature immediately thereafter agreed re-enact After dictated signed 1:50 afternoon. Although exhibited sporadic hesitation, described Connecticut, form continuous sequence. rejected argument 'voluntary' adoption statement.

Classification Label: 0