Court Opinion

ID: 9574807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:08:29.812476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:16.143571
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard
dissenting.
In the matter of the confession of guilt admitted in evidence, the record here, as I am persuaded, parallels the composite of the records in recent cases determined by the Supreme Court of the United States relative to confessions, cited in the court’s opinion, namely, Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 69 Sup. Ct. 1347, 93 L. Ed. 1434; *325Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U. S. 62, 69 Sup. Ct. 1352, 93 L. Ed. 1443; Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U. S. 68, 69 Sup. Ct. 1354, 93 L. Ed. 1440. The conclusions reached in those cases, as I think, should be regarded as controlling. In that view, and not pausing for extended exposition, I find it consistent to dissent. The details of the offense, much emphasized in the court’s opinion, are well calculated to cause even judges, for the nonce, to forget rules of criminal procedure, and justify on the enormity of the offending. It were well, I think, ever to keep in mind, that, “The history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards.” McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 63 Sup. Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819.