Court Opinion

ID: 9649189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:44:24.657249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:08.650334
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
I do not agree with the majority that the appellant was not entitled to the services of an attorney while in Dallas, and at all times before he began confessing.
*824It is my opinion that the written confession was admissible and was obtained from the defendant after he had waived his constitutional rights against self-incrimination. When he agreed to be interviewed by newspaper reporters prior to the making of the written confession, he gave strong indication of his willingness to talk despite his right not to talk. The long written confession which was read to the jury and gave full, gory facts in detail, was so condemning as to render the admission of the oral confession harmless error. The oral confession, as given in the testimony, was brief and absent any details.
To paraphrase Harrington v. California, 396 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284,1 can conceive of no “juror whose mind might have been made up because of” the oral confession.