Court Opinion

ID: 9421695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:59:22.828736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:31.715050
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black concur,
dissenting.
Petitioner, pursuant to a request left by the police at his home on Saturday, December 17, appeared at headquarters in Orange, New Jersey, at 9 a. m. on the 18th. He did so on the advice of his lawyer, Frank A. Palmieri. Petitioner’s brother and father accompanied him on this visit but were separated from him on arrival at the headquarters. Shortly thereafter petitioner was taken to Newark where he was interrogated by the police until 9:30 p. m. when he confessed. Between 2 p. m. and 9:30 p. m. Mr. Palmieri asked over and again to see his client; but his requests were not granted. On this phase of the case the District Court said:
“Mr. Palmieri was not produced as a witness on the trial of this case, but his affidavit was admitted by *512stipulation. The contents of his affidavit and the testimony of petitioner’s father and brother are at variance with the testimony of the Newark police as to the manner in which petitioner and his counsel were restrained from communicating with each other. According to petitioner’s witnesses Palmieri’s pleas were met with blunt refusals and remarks such as 'We’re working on him.’ The police claim to have been much more decorous. But whether it was done flippantly or courteously, the fact remains that for over seven hours the Newark police formed an insuperable barrier between an accused who wanted to see his counsel, and counsel who wanted to see his client. And it was during these seven hours that the police and an assistant prosecutor were able to obtain a detailed confession from petitioner.” 148 F. Supp. 98, 99-100.
The District Court reached “without enthusiasm” the conclusion that petitioner’s constitutional rights had not been impaired. Id., at 104. The Court of Appeals evinced the same lack of enthusiasm for the result. 240 F. 2d 844. Both lower courts felt that any correction of this unjust result should come from us. I regret that we have not taken this case, and the companion cases, as the occasion to bring our decisions into tune with the constitutional requirement for fair criminal proceedings against the citizen. I would reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in my dissent in Crooker v. California, ante, p. 441.