Legal Document

470 U.S. 51 105 S.Ct. 1065 84 L.Ed.2d 38 Kevin Michael SHEA, Petitioner,v.LOUISIANA. No. 82-5920. Argued Nov. 7, 1984. Decided Feb. 20, 1985. Syllabus After petitioner was arrested on armed robbery charges in Louisiana, he taken to the police station for questioning by detectives. Upon being read his Miranda rights, said that did not wish make any statement until saw a lawyer, and interview then terminated. But next day before had communicated with one of same detectives, without inquiring whether spoken an attorney indication from willing be interrogated, asked if talk about case. rights were again petitioner, orally confessed committed robberies. Over petitioner's objections confession admitted into evidence at trial convicted. In meantime, subsequent convictions while appeal Louisiana Supreme Court pending, this ruled Edwards v. Arizona, 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378, criminal defendant's under Fifth Fourteenth Amendments violated use obtained police-instigated interrogation—without counsel present—after requested attorney. While acknowledging presence violation, went hold applied Held: The ruling applies cases pending direct time decided. Pp. 54-61. 421 So.2d 200 (La.1982), reversed remanded. Frances Baker Jack, Shreveport, La., petitioner. Paul Joseph Carmouche, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 378 (1981), This case presents issue is applicable state court 2 * There no dispute as facts. Petitioner Shea charged two counts robbery. He July 2, 1979, Shreveport. turned over Detectives Smith Snell questioning. His so-called see 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), him, signed standard card. said, however, lawyer. thereupon 3 following afternoon, 3, been communication Detective returned. informed transferred city jail parish jail. Without or indigent, now wanted Again, 4 against came due course State District Caddo Parish. At point, severed. Prior jury first count, formally moved suppress 3. App. 2. trial, which took place 1980, prosecution offered evidence. defense objected, but objection overruled admitted. filed like suppression motion respect second charge. Id., 6. When denied, withdrew original plea entered guilty, reservation law, Crosby, 338 584, 588 (La.1976), right denial suppress. 7-8. 5 On raised court's error, violation Miranda, admitting confession. its opinion, tribunal cited Court's decision Edwards, come down meantime convictions. acknowledged violation.1 It stated: 6 "In present it undisputed initiate such inquiry after having clearly defendant previous evening would statements counsel. Consequently, there additional governing interrogation suspect imposed Arizona. . ." 200, 203 (1982). 7 court, case: 8 "As [error] occurred rendered we are convinced United States will pronounce retroactive, so case." So.2d, 204. 9 successfully rehearing retroactivity issue. rehearing, although acknowledged, id., 210, confession, admissible, adhered, dissents, position given retroactive effect. stated "clear break past," new ruling, retroactive. 210. 10 Because importance because conflicting decisions elsewhere,2 granted certiorari. 466 957, 104 2167, 80 551 (1984). II 11 center controversy, involved facts startlingly similar those Police officers questioned him point ceased. day, other visited they oral positive clear ruling: 12 "[A]lthough have held initially advised accused may himself validly waive respond interrogation, has strongly indicated safeguards necessary when asks counsel; invoked during custodial valid waiver cannot established showing only responded further police-initiated even rights. We accused, expressed desire deal through counsel, subject authorities made available unless initiates communication, exchanges, conversations police" (footnote omitted). U.S., 484-485, S.Ct., 1884-1885. 13 See also Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 298, 100 1682, 1688, 64 297 (1980); Fare C., 442 707, 719, 99 2560, 2568, 61 197 (1979); Michigan Mosley, 423 96, 104, n. 10, 96 321, 326 46 313 (1975), 109-111, 329-330 (opinion concurring result); 444-445, 474, 1627. 14 legal principle, thus, uncontested here. question us retroactively undecided system decided.3 III 15 Two recent bear importantly upon Johnson, 457 537, 102 2579, 73 202 case, concerning Fourth Amendment all yet final rendered, except situations controlled existing precedents contrary. Specifically, Payton New York, 445 573, 1371, 63 639 (1980), Johnson's Johnson found persuasive Harlan's earlier reasoning application rule law review order avoid super-legislature, selecting several announce letting similarly situated persons passed unaffected unprotected rule. Desist States, 394 244, 256, 89 1030, 1037, 22 248 (1969) (dissenting opinion)s Mackey 401 667, 675, 91 1160, 1164, 28 404 (1971) (separate opinion). noted that, minimum, " 'all "new" rules constitutional must still handed down.' 548, 2586, quoting dissent 258, 1038. Court, "[t]o extent decide today's embrace[d] views Mackey." 562, 2594. thus determined past prior mandate nonretroactivity, adopted. 17 considering Payton, concluded resolved fairly applying So do (a) provide principle decisionmaking consonant understanding Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 601 (1965), Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 459, 453 (b) comport judicial responsibility justice each litigant merits own (c) goal treating defendants similarly. 18 Solem Stumes, 465 638, 1338, 79 579 It, too, obvious 1973, more than seven years Edwards. Stumes' state-court conviction finally affirmed South Dakota, sought federal habeas relief. petition writ, denied Federal Appeals, decided Appeals acted unconstitutionally. divided vote, reversed, holding Stumes situation. POWELL concurred judgment, 651, 1346, impose costs accrue corpus; costs, view, "generally far outweigh benefits application." 654, 1347-1348. 19 primary difference between hand, other, judgment collateral attack become final.4 acknowledge, course, does directly control disposition specifically declined address implications area Amendment, attack.5 conclude, reason reach result different reached Johnson. Mack Oklahoma, 459 900, 103 201, 74 161 nothing suggests context should greater effect Indeed, likely affect truth-finding process violation. And reasoning—that principled fairness petitioners require review—is equal force situation presently us. our analysis relevant direct-review claim entitled benefit IV 20 Other arguments support below persuasive. First, drawing distinction produces inequities injustices purported cure. argument whose considered presented just unfairly treated bypassed law. distinction, properly rests considerations finality process. already system. not. For latter, curtain drawn. Somewhere, closing come. stressed 653-654, 1347. specifically: "[I]t particularly difficult justify imposing review. These insubstantial." 21 Next, nullification many relegate prosecutors retry events ago. think concern overstated. empirical support, states unavailable. Brief Respondent 11. note, furthermore, courts expressing lapse creating apparent administrative difficulty. supra. unduly slow winding way State's system, could much fault defendant's, serve penalize defendant. addition, every alone excepted, reliance justifies nonapplication But, pointed out, If retroactively, dispense confined prospective unavailable himself. 23 Finally, prophylactic character designed enhance accuracy jurisprudence. argument, Payne, 412 47, 93 1966, 36 736 (1973), where North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 2072, 656 (1969), consideration. feel, fully answered what above opinion. 24 remanded proceedings inconsistent 25 ordered. 26 WHITE, whom Chief Justice, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 27 Last Term, (1984), announced attacks purpose rule, justifiable failure foresee substantial disruption entail wisdom nonretroactive. Today, majority concludes notwithstanding reasons restricting involving interrogations postdate completed holding, apparently adopts long advocated shifting minority Justices endorsed limited circumstances (1982): namely, decision—except, perhaps, constitutes past"—must down. concerns purportedly underlie majority's decision. somehow essential attribute decisionmaking, announces declines give effect, abandoned role assumed function legislature—or, term Harlan employed describing problem, "super-legislature." 259, 1039, (Harlan, J., dissenting). (and completely unrelated) fairness. business reasons, treat alike; accordingly, unfair receive another, identically situated, benefit. doubt laudable, I escape conclusion spawned makes sense. 29 As means avoiding known super-legislature wholly inadequate. True, legislature, super otherwise. supposed usurpation legislative authority generally go substance Surely who believe overstepped bounds legitimate announcing find little solace some sense illegitimate, making useless gesture fool one. If, salutary one, purposes ill-served application, worse useless, uncompensated perceptible gains "judicial legitimacy." 30 futility latest attempt doctrine difficulty highlighted unwillingness commit itself logic position. maintains function, majority, supra, continues out possibility "really" rule—one marks past—may ante, 57 59, 5; 549-550, 551-554, 2587-2588, 2588-2590. Of truly concerned break" trouble most. might expect disturbed problem purports swear off altogether, reserve power both them decline apply retroactively. leaving open exception decisions, demonstrates emptiness proposed solution problem. 31 serves interest equally hollow. Although finds intolerable perfectly tolerate disparate treatment seeking their prisoners attacking proceedings. before, 566-568, 2596-2597 (WHITE, dissenting); Williams 646, 656-659, 1148, 1154-1155, 388 (plurality opinion), seems me distinguish challenges misguided. Under otherwise rules, depending how ago now-unconstitutional conduct quickly proceed disparity kind occurs afforded others; approach equalizes numbers within disparately classes. 32 recognizes problematic, differential appealing need draw "the finality," 60, unfortunate enough exhausted last Yet offers decisive factor. overturned basis remedy inculpatory excluded. why burdensome acceptable attack. attendant vary habeas;1 appeal, strong deny collaterally. Conversely, worthwhile grant hard 33 underlying flaw articulate premises actually rests. recognizing marking trumps dictate proceedings, implicitly fact alike. short, certain ought fail reflect thoughtful be. By contrast, principles set forth most recently rational framework thinking particular sense—that is, costs. (the enforcement officials' effects retroactivity) nonretroactive join More importantly, concur adopted majority—an regarding nonretroactivity remain undisturbed, merely adds confusing unjustifiable addendum jurisprudence.2 34 respectfully dissent. 35 adopt aspects propounded concurrence 1171, (1971). approach, prescribed prosecutions and, narrow exceptions, challenging announced. summarize justifications thoughtfully articulated Harlan. 37 entirety bright-line appeals attacks, WHITE's dissent, agreeing rejection sound nonretroactive.* confronted instance, Illinois, 469 91, 490, 83 488 whether, done so, initiated conversation Oregon Bradshaw, 462 2830, 77 405 (1983), opinions therein. A parties here agree, instant See, e.g., Brown, 317 N.W.2d 714, 715 (Minn.1982); Taylor, 56 Or.App. 703, 708, 643 P.2d 379, courts, addressing issue, Platt, 130 Ariz. 570, 575-576, 637 1073, 1079 (App.1981); People Cerezo, 635 197, 199-201 (Colo.1981); Brezee, 66 Haw. 162, 657 1044 (1983); Carty, 231 Kan. 282, 644 407 (1982); Paintman, Mich. 518, 315 418, cert. 456 995, 2280, 1292 Had certiorari announced, surely remanded, cases, reconsideration light Blakney Montana, 1013, 2999, 69 (1981); White Finkbeiner, 3000, 385 (1981) (on habeas); Leuschner Maryland, 1014, 3001, Monroe Idaho, Wantland 386 James (1981). actions 1981 these part inapplicable six questioning, predated Blakney, remand, discussion retroactivity. Monroe, Idaho 129, 645 363 Mont. 131, 641 1045 conclusive, note least occasions addition discussed infra text, setting, inquiries Wyrick Fields, 42, 394, 214 (1982) (inquiry 1974); (1983) 1980). comment Our examination appendices briefs reveals raised. Its presence, sufficiently disturbing cause mention sua sponte. observed: "At Edwards." 650, 1345. rationale today, became hold, decided, appellate subject, waiver, harmless like. not, conducting rectify error consistent view ordinarily stood final. 689, 1178, judgment). Hankerson Carolina, 432 233, 248, 97 2339, 2347, 53 306 (1977) (POWELL, Thus, applicability Arizona congruent Mackey. precedents, almost automatically. Whatever be, recognized "not sort 'clear break' automatically nonretroactive." 647, 1343. relationship recency crime; difficulties severe under-lying offense remote time, trials tend somewhat reversals appeal. However, direct, speed progress widely. alike, accomplish precisely appropriately vintage. assume, argue explicit "5-year rule," example. notion significantly less ordered called serious grants commission charged. conveniently aggregate full effect; token, names begin letter "S" obviously countenance latter identify raising indefensible. foreshadowed—not all—is Really breaking past, neither nor three categories decisions: new, newish, brand new. hoped plenary review, better that. results happen approach. Only POWELL, Solem, followed concurrence. requires favors yields; appear prepared take course.

Classification Label: 0