Legal Document

459 U.S. 42 103 Supreme Court Reporter 394 74 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 214 Donald W. WYRICK, Wardenv.Edward FIELDS. Number 82-158. Decided Nov. 29, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 In this case, the of Appeals for Eighth Circuit, over a dissent by Judge Ross, directed that respondent Edward Fields' petition writ habeas corpus be granted; it did so on ground Fields had been convicted with evidence obtained in violation his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present at an interrogation. 682 Federal Reporter, 2nd 154 (1982). We concluded Appeals' majority misconstrued Court's recent decision Edwards versus Arizona, 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378 (1981), and imposed new unjustified limit police questioning suspect who voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently waives present. 2 * Respondent, soldier then stationed Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., was charged raping 81 year-old woman-on September 21, 1974. After arrest 25, released own recognizance. He retained private defense counsel. discussing matter military attorney provided him Army, requested polygraph examination. This request granted examination conducted December 4 agent Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID) fort. 3 Prior undergoing examination, given written consent document, which he signed, informing rights, as required Miranda 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), rights under Uniform Code Military Justice Amendment. addition, CID read following detailed statement: "Before & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions ask you any questions, must understand your rights. You do not answer my questions or say anything. Anything can used against criminal trial. talk lawyer before during questioning. civilian choice, lawyer, no expense you. Also, may choice name will if superiors determine he's reasonably available. If are now going discuss offense investigation, is rape, without present, stop answering time speak further, even sign waiver certificate. Do want time?" See State Fields, 538 South Western 348, 350 n. (Mo.App.1976) (emphasis added). 5 answered: "No." 6 At conclusion took less than two hours, told there some deceit, asked could explain why answers were bothering him. admitted having intercourse victim but said she instigated consented it. The wished further another Waynesville, Chief Police. did. Then, turn, chief warnings once again repeated sexual contact victim, consensual. 7 Respondent tried jury Circuit Court, Pulaski County, Mo. sought suppress testimony agents regarding "confessions" voluntary intercourse. trial court denied motion, ruling waived admitted. convicted, sentenced 25 years prison. Missouri affirmed judgment "had repeatedly amply advised . knowingly rights." S.W.2d, 350. 8 Eventually, District Eastern Missouri. agreeing counsel, respondent's petition. On appeal, however, reversed remanded case directions order either release afford F.2d, 162. II 9 found conduct question contravened "clear import" Arizona: "a defendant's custodial interrogations zealously guarded." 158. Edwards, held invokes subjected interrogation until unless himself initiates dialogue authorities. U.S., 484-487, S.Ct., 1884-1886. recognized what called "per se rule" "does resolve issue here." agreed should take appeared voluntarily stated Thus, conceded "Fields thereby 'initiated' authorities after invoked." Ibid. 10 When has initiated dialogue, makes clear waived: 11 "If, frequently would occur course meeting accused, conversation wholly one-sided, likely officers something clearly 'interrogation.' event, whether valid silence occurred, is, purported knowing intelligent totality circumstances, including necessary fact police, reopened authorities." 486, 9, 1885, 9. 12 Citing language, acknowledged—as to—that "[t]here while [polygraph] itself being conducted." 160. Yet failed satisfy its burden proving post-test interrogation." suggested merely "paus[ed] remind defendant" thus providing "meaningfully timed warnings" original), violation. III 13 reaching result, examine "totality circumstances," requires. initiate "meeting." By requesting That only free absence attorney, also about crime suspected. validly "post-test" questioning, circumstances changed seriously longer voluntary, making "knowing relinquishment abandonment" 482, 1883. 14 relied facts indicating need set warnings: discontinued, test's unfavorable results. To require because these unreasonable. Disconnecting equipment effectuated significant change character informed indicated deceit; asking disconnected, more coercive. indication anticipated But unreasonable attorneys assume readings result. Moreover, time, join Merely disconnecting remove knowledge from mind.* 15 plausible explanation court's holding that, encouraged regarded per rule established fashioned own: notwithstanding knowing, understood aware power advise same results polygraph. needed thought use "results" although does necessarily render response involuntary, inherently Courts Appeals, different panel itself, state courts, rejected such rule. See, e.g., Little Bear, 583 411, 414 (CA8 1978); Keiper Cupp, 509 238, 241-242 (CA9 1975); People Barreto, 256 Cal.App.2d 392, 64 Cal.Rptr. 211 (1967); Henry, 352 So.2d 643 (La.1977). Cf. Henry Dees, 658 406 (CA5 1981) (waiver total mental retardation suspect). Circuit's certainly finds support emphasizes controlling. Nor logical; put caused forget moments before. simply unjustifiable restriction reasonable IV According dissent, substantial admissibility statements raised Sixth Post, 52-55. issues us. rested exclusively "right interrogation" interpretation Edwards. flawed reversed. express view constitutional safeguards mentioned bear case. 17 Because misapplied created rule, certiorari remanded. 18 It ordered. 19 STEVENS, concurring. 20 There much force MARSHALL dissent. share concern practice deciding cases summarily, partly special risk error summary dispositions represents unwise scarce resources. not, agree MARSHALL's suggestion we invite parties submit briefs merits summarily decided. fear institution tend regularize expand number our dispositions. 21 believe correct procedure followed deny certiorari. No conflict yet developed precise presented and, demonstrates, reasoned support. Although voted action, am persuaded resolution therefore disposition. 22 MARSHALL, dissenting. 23 A reversal exceptional reserved situations applicable law settled stable, disputed, below error.1 24 constituted respect post-examination view, controlled footnote 486 1885 relies. dealt hypothetical police. interrogation, incriminating elicited admissible suspect's inferred light "the (Emphasis supplied.) circumstances" includes undisputed never agreement differs important initiation ordinary commences policeman, reason expect conversation, give-and-take extending beyond subject original remarks. appropriate conclude extends entire conversation. contrast, discrete test. readily identifiable beginning end. An individual submits whatsoever interrogation.2 While prosecution able prove knew test, here "no officer attempt elicit run." 154, 160 1982). disposed summarily. recognize, course, expanding docket increased pressure accelerate disposition process. cannot agree, proper involves prior decisions. concludes "special reasons," Sup.Ct.Rule 17.1, granting oral argument, least give notice considering disposition, they opportunity merits. Brown, Foreword: Process Law, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 77, 94-95 (1958). 26 Today's holds violate privilege self-incrimination. preclude remand nevertheless violated counsel.3 Massiah States, 377 201, 84 1199, 246 (1964). policies underlying protections quite distinct," Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 300 4, 100 1682, 1689 297 (1980), waive remain silent waiving 27 Where applies, ultimate alleged constitute demonstrates despite compulsion inherent surroundings," 458, voluntarily. make protection compelled self-incrimination effective, Id., 469-472, 1625-1626. Once custody asks "is made available him, accused communication, exchanges, conversations police." 484-485, 1884-1885, (1981). needs legal advice subsequent authorities' insistence unlikely voluntary. Michigan Mosley, 423 96, 110 2, 96 321, 46 313 (1975) (WHITE, J., concurring result). If, other hand, well Since purpose prevent coercing himself, sense find where provides assurance 28 determination focus, values different. provide defendant assistance critical stages Brewer Williams, 430 387, 398, 97 1232, 1239, 51 424 (1977); Powell Alabama, 287 45, 57, 53 55, 59, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). effect protection, insisted deal through attorney. commenced adversary proceedings individual, months held, forbids all efforts information regardless custody, see 447 264, 273-274 11, 2183, 2188-2189 65 115 (1980); supra, technique extract way coercive, McLeod Ohio, 381 356, 85 1556, (1965). 29 establish enough point conduct—such conversation—that depend upon coercion, shows coerced. show relinquished questioned " 'an intentional abandonment' 404, 1242, quoting Johnson Zerbst, 304 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938).4 30 Given Amendments, surprising courts '[w]arnings enforcement action might suffice comply strictures testimonial [do] meet higher standard applies when attached.' Mohabir, 624 1140, 1147 (CA2 1980), quotingUnited Massimo, 432 324, 327 1970) (Friendly, dissenting) (majority reach issue), cert. denied, 400 1022, 91 586, 633 (1971).5 foreclose suggests examinations inadmissible Missouri, expected "to additional produce evidence." 51, 2. evidence, surely been. generally Certainly one argue blood lineup, fingerprinting those procedures. particularly inappropriate realized Biddle, 599 182, 191 (Mo.1980) (en banc); Weindorf, 361 806, 811 (Mo.1962). defendant, consultation agrees inadmissible, justification inferring evidence. majority's certainty "exclusively Amendment." Ante, 49. opinion considerable length, phrased terms counsel" referring specifically 157 ("we interrogation"); id., 161 ("The government introduced confronted accusatory statement 'lie-detector' showed lying, coercive situation."). (relying (1977), case). noteworthy Magistrate, whose report adopted, pointed problem observing somewhat empty gesture appoint pursue attorney." asserts "expands guaranteed Amendments." Petition Certiorari supplied). since today construes resting solely Amendment, remains open remand. addressed governing interrogated occasion consider applied whether, so, protection. 480 7, 1882 7. ex rel. O'Connor New Jersey, 405 632, 636 (CA7), 395 923, 89 1770, 240 (1969); Hancock White, 479, 482 (CA1 1967). Springer, 460 1344, 1354-1355 (CA7) (Stevens, dissenting), 409 873, 93 205, 34 125 (1972); Arthur, N.Y.2d 325, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 239 North 537, 539 (1968). Note, Colum.L.Rev. 363

Classification Label: 0