Court Opinion

ID: 9696261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:42:59.946026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:20.332164
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, leaves undetermined the question of its retroactivity in that Constitutional field. Moreover, the Court’s Opinion in the recent case of Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, has served to increase the confusion. The last case gave no clear guideposts to State or lower Federal Courts to determine the question of retroactivity or prospectivity, but merely held that each case must be decided on an ad hoc basis, weighing the merits and demerits in each case, and particularly the effect of the decision on the question of Justice to the accused and to Society alike.
In the absence of an express holding or decision thereon by the Supreme Court, to hold Escobedo to be retroactive would have the practical result* of releasing a multitude of hardened criminals who had been justly convicted of felonies under the then existing law.
In these days when the appalling and constantly increasing crime wave is sweeping our Country, to apply Escobedo retroactively would so greatly jeopardize the protection and safety of Society, that it is difficult to believe that was the intent of the Supreme Court.
*131While I disagree with many statements in the majority Opinion in this case, I will not impute to the Supreme Court of the United States a ruling which if retroactively applied will undoubtedly have such widespread and disastrous effects upon Society unless and until the Supreme Court expressly states that its decision was intended to be retroactive. The interests and protection of Society should always be of paramount or at least equal importance to Congress, Legislatures and Courts.
For these reasons I agree with the conclusion of the majority (1) that Escobedo is not retroactive and (2) that under Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, a remand of this case is necessary for an independent hearing and determination by the Court of the voluntariness of petitioner’s confession.

 Because of the lapse of time, or the loss of records, or the unavailability of witnesses for the Commonwealth, or the likely dimness of their recollection.