Court Opinion

ID: 9856501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:49:08.331126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:51.487389
License: Public Domain

McQUADE, Justice
(specially concurring).
I concur in the conclusion of the majority that the conviction of the defendant was erroneously secured upon improperly admitted evidence. In addition to the errors pointed out by the majority opinion, attention is directed to the circumstances under which the so-called confession was obtained by an investigator of the Air Force. It appears from the record that the investigating agent was investigating a particular crime with the purpose of ascertaining information which would be used towards securing a conviction of the defendant of such crime. As pointed out by the majority opinion, the defendant was advised as to certain civil safeguards preliminarily to the investigator’s taking a statement from the defendant. The defendant was not advised as to the seriousness of the charge nor as to his right to be represented by counsel.
Testimony of the investigating agent for the Air Force reveals that he was investigating the defendant for a specific crime and that this agent advised the defendant that “no force, unlawful coercion, unlawful influence or anything could be used” to obtain a statement. Such warning and advice of rights is totally insufficient on the part of an investigating officer to protect the civil rights of a citizen. The defendant was not advised of the knowledge which the agent possessed that a criminal charge was in fact contemplated against the defendant or more likely was in the process of being filed. The defendant was not told he had a right to counsel, thereby having an opportunity to protect any rights which he might have.
*130A recent case concerning the right to counsel is Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). Language used in that case which is pertinent at this point may be summarized by saying the advice of counsel is essential to protect a suspect during interrogation because events which transpired thereat could affect the full nature of the trial by way of defenses and admission of evidence.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, held that every person accused of a crime is assured by the Constitution of the United States that he may have counsel at trial.
The record does not disclose that defendant Hall requested counsel and the record is likewise silent that the defendant was advised as to his right to counsel. In the absence of a specific request for counsel, it is vital that a suspect be advised of his right to counsel, as assured by the Constitution of the United States. See Gideon v. Wainwright, supra.
Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, said:
“Our Constitution, unlike some others, strikes the balance in favor of the right of the accused to be advised by his lawyer of his privilege against self-incrimination.”
Most assuredly the pretrial examination and interrogation of a defendant by trained investigators is a critical time in the course of events which ultimately places a defendant on trial for a crime. While the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, rules that statements made in the absence of counsel are inadmissible, the conclusion is inevitable that investigators must inform the defendant that he has a right to counsel before the interrogation is conducted.
Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, was discussed and analyzed in People v. Dorado, 40 Cal.Rptr. 264, 394 P.2d 952 (Cal., 1964). In that opinion the Supreme Court of California arrived at the conclusion that Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, and other federal cases do not require the accused in a criminal case to request counsel to preclude the use of incriminating statements elicited by the police during an accusatory investigation, unless the right to counsel is intelligently waived, and further, that no waiver can be presumed unless the investigating officers inform the suspect of his constitutional right to counsel or his right to remain silent.
The California court also said: *131defendant who most needs counsel. We should not penalize the defendant who, not understanding his legal rights, does not make the formal request and by such failure demonstrates his helplessness. Defendant in the instant case was peculiarly helpless; he was a convict without contact with the world beyond the prison; the effect of his confession, irretrievably linking him with the murder, was to expose him to the automatic sequence of the death penalty. To require the formal request for counsel for the application of the rule would be to favor the defendant whose sophistication or status had fortuitously prompted him to make the request.”
*130“We find no strength in an artificial requirement that a defendant must specifically request counsel; the test must be a substantive one: whether or not the point of necessary protection for guidance of counsel has been reached.
“The defendant who does not realize his rights under the law and who therefore does not request counsel is the very