Court Opinion

ID: 9765790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:19:31.677859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:15.744248
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
Mb. Justice White.
Plaintiff in error has filed a respectful petition to rehear which has been answered ably by the State. He is *207particularly aggrieved by the admission of the confession in view of the fact that he requested an attorney from the sheriff, bnt that later, when he confessed to the telephone company agent, no attorney was present to counsel him.
Counsel for plaintiff in error cites the case of United States ex rel. Russo v. State of New Jersey, 351 F.2d 429 (3d Cir. 1965), for the proposition that where an accused is not allowed access to an attorney when giving a confession, regardless of any lack of coercion, the confession is inadmissible at trial. That case was based, of course, on the holding in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), under the circumstances of Escobedo. In both Escobedo and Russo, there is a clear implication, if not a direct conclusion, that the accused was denied his constitutional rights. In the case at bar, petitioner was specifically warned that anything he said might be used against him and that he did not have to make a statement. We, therefore, feel that these cases are patently distinguishable from the instant case.
Counsel’s new argument that the telephone company agent is also an agent of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment is, therefore, academic in view of our decision herein. Petition to rehear is denied.
Buehett, Chiee Justice, and Dyeb, Chattost and Ckesoh, Justices, concur.