Court Opinion

ID: 9753641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:21:27.428868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:39.722104
License: Public Domain

*49Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice O’Brien :
I dissent from the opinion of the majority for the reason that I do not believe that the warnings given to appellant prior to questioning were sufficient to inform him fully of his constitutional rights.
It is admitted that before appellant’s statement was obtained, he was told by the police that “if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, and you want one, we will see that you have a lawyer provided to you before we ask you any questions.” Appellant argues that the statement did not adequately inform him of his constitutional right to free counsel if he were indigent and, therefore, he could not have made a knowing and intelligent waiver of such right.
We accepted a very similar argument in the case of Commonwealth v. Marsh, 440 Pa. 590, 271 A. 2d 481 (1970). In Marsh, the defendant “. . . was told that he had the right to an attorney and if he could not afford one, one would be obtained for him.” Id. at 596.
The Commonwealth seems to argue that although appellant was not specifically told that he would be provided with counsel “free of charge” if he could not afford to hire counsel, that was the only reasonable interpretation of the warning actually given to him. According to the Commonwealth, we should not require that an appellant be told that “he would not have to pay for the counsel for whom he could not pay.”
However, it does not help the Commonwealth’s position for us to agree that the warnings given to the appellant can reasonably be interpreted to mean that, if he cannot afford the services of a lawyer, the costs of the lawyer provided to him will be borne by the Commonwealth.
Our decision in Marsh was based on a desire to insure that the defendant’s constitutional rights were clearly made known to all defendants, including those *50who were wholly uneducated, capable only of a most rudimentary understanding of English. It is for this reason that we held in Marsh, that on the basis of the warning given in that case, “we are not persuaded that this, in itself, fully apprised Marsh of his right to the assistance of counsel without charge if he were indigent.” Commonwealth, v. Marsh, supra, at 596.
This Court’s decision in Marsh, was in direct accord with both the explicit language and the underlying philosophy of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). In discussing the content of the necessary warnings, the United States Supreme Court cogently stated: “The warning of a right to counsel would be hollow if not couched in terms that would convey to the indigent—the person most often subjected to interrogation—the knowledge that he too has a right to have counsel present. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and of the general right to counsel, only by effective and express explanation to the indigent of this right can there be assurance that he was truly vn a position to exercise it. . . . [I]f police propose to interrogate a person they must make known to him that he is entitled to a lawyer and that if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him prior to any interrogation.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 473, 474, 86 S. Ct. at 1627, 1628. This language makes it clear that what is constitutionally required is more than a mere formal recital of what a defendant’s constitutional rights are during in-custody interrogation. The Supreme Court made it mandatory that “only by effective and express explanation to the indigent” could the police “make known” his constitutional right and thereby assure “that he was truly in a position to exercise it.” In accord with the language and dictate of Miranda is the ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Jus*51tice, Standards Relating to Providing Defense Services, §7.1 (Approved Draft 1968), which, states: “. . . The offer should be made in words easily understood, and it should be stated expressly that one who is unable to pay for adequate representation is entitled to have it provided without cost to him. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
To insure this constitutional objective of a knowing and intelligent decision by the defendant, the Supreme Court in Miranda explicitly required the application of federal standards for determining waiver to custodial interrogations: “This Court has always set high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), and we reassert these standards as applied to in-custody interrogation.” Id. at 475, 86 S. Ct. at 1628.
It follows inexorably from Miranda and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), that before a defendant can waive a constitutional right to free counsel during custodial interrogation, he must be advised of that right “by effective and express explanation.”
I am unable to make the distinction which the majority makes between Marsh and the instant case. The only essential difference in the two cases is that in Marsh, the defendant was told that if he could not afford counsel, counsel would be “obtained for him,” while in the case at bar, the defendant was told that if he could not afford to hire a lawyer, one would be “provided.” I see nothing in either case which would indicate an understanding on the part of the defendant that the lawyer “obtained” or “provided” would be compensated by the Commonwealth and not the defendant. If Marsh was wrongly decided, a view which I do not hold, it should be overruled rather than attempting to distinguish that case from the instant case, where the factual situations present what I believe to be a distinction without a difference.
*52Furthermore, this case appears to be even stronger than Marsh. Here, the police who were doing the questioning advised appellant that if he wanted a lawyer, “we will see that you have a lawyer provided to you before we ask you any questions.” (Emphasis supplied. ) One in the appellant’s position might well have concluded that a lawyer provided by the police would be of little value to one being questioned by the police. Consequently, I believe that the warning, in addition to making clear that the attorney to be provided will be provided without cost to the defendant, should also make clear that which is made clear by Buie 318 of the Eules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., that it is the court which will provide counsel, not the police.
The majority holds that the warning was adequate because appellant said that he understood it. However, the record does not indicate just what it was the appellant understood. It does not indicate that he understood that he was entitled to free counsel or that such counsel would be appointed by the court. Since I believe that the warning was insufficient to convey this information clearly, I believe that the strong possibility exists that appellant’s understanding was also insufficient to support a finding that he knowingly waived his rights. I would vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the case for a new trial.
Mr. Justice Boberts and Mr. Justice Nix join in this dissenting opinion.