Court Opinion

ID: 9536759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:06:43.517255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:13.140910
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) .
The so-called Miranda and Escobedo rules opened Pandora’s box and started courts on a course which completely ignores the question of guilt or innocence *433in criminal trials and serves as unwarranted shields for guilty criminals. They tend to cause a miscarriage of justice by putting undue emphasis on newly devised procedural rules which are not based upon logic, reason or common sense. These rules should never have been pronounced in the first place and except for the power behind them should not now be followed. Certainly they should not be extended.
As originally pronounced1 these rules applied to in-custody interrogation by ■police officers. They were not intended to apply to private persons since private persons are not required to give any warning or furnish an attorney before asking questions.2
The Intermountain Indian School is a coeducational, off-reservation, boarding school for Indian students. There is nothing in the record to show that any person was compelled to remain in the school against his will. The guidance counselors and other school officials were naturally disturbed by the crimes which had been perpetrated upon young girls attending their school, and they were interested in ascertaining the identity of the guilty parties. None of the school officials or guidance counselors were officers of the law nor were they affiliated in any manner whatsoever with any such officers. They stood in the relationship of in loco parentis to the entire student body, and in that relationship they were not required even by the rules of Escobedo and Miranda to give any advisory warnings or to furnish an attorney before asking questions.
In their investigation they had eliminated from possible guilt all but 60 or 80 of the male student body. They caused these 60 or more young men to be brought before a police officer for further questioning. In each instance a guidance counselor accompanied the boys as they were interrogated to make certain that no advantages were taken of them.
As the boys were taken before the officer they were told-by the guidance counselor to tell the truth. Now this advice may sound harsh to the ear of a defense oriented judge who has lost sight of obtaining a just verdict, however, it should be observed that Indian people are noted for telling the truth and for encouraging others to do likewise.
All of the students questioned by the police officer were properly advised of any so-called rights pursuant to the Escobedo and Miranda cases, and there is no claim made by any of the defendants to the con-
24 Utah 2d — 28 *434trary. They do complain that the school officials did not advise them of their so-called Miranda and Escobedo rights. As was shown above, these defendants were not entitled to such warnings, but no statements made by any of the boys to the school officials or guidance counselors were offered in evidence at the trial. Under questioning of the police officer each of the defendants in this case confessed to his participation in the crimes which had been committed and these confessions were admitted in evidence.
Even if the school officials had been required to give the warnings, such would not be required during the investigatory stage of the proceeding. The fact that more than 60 boys were brought before the police officer shows that the school officials had not at that time begun any accusatory proceedings against the six defendants in this case.
The dissent seems more interested in the sleep of the boys than the rape of the girls. It does not mention the fact that two girls were dragged from under the bed where they were hiding, down a hallway and out onto the grounds, where one of them was raped eight times and the other five times.3 Nor does it express any concern for the fact that while the girls were being dragged like hogs down the hallway and along the ground, some of the boys were running along beside them poking their fingers inside their private parts until the fingers were bloody.
One should not criticize the school officials for working around the clock to try to find the culprits who committed such dastardly acts. From a student body of 2,000 they eliminated from guilt all but 60 or 80 of the boys, whom they later directed to appear before the officer of the law. No conference with the officer exceeded 40 minutes at most, and most conferences were no more than five minutes in duration of time.
Under the direction of their lawyer each defendant at trial denied that he knew the meaning of the word “rape” and apparently the jury believed them, for despite the fact that each had written in his own handwriting that he had raped one of the girls, not one defendant was found guilty of rape. One was convicted of simple assault, and the others of assault with intent to commit rape. Thus the admission of the confessions into evidence, even if erroneous, would seem to be harmless, since none of the defendants was convicted of the crime to which he had confessed.
After the verdicts were returned, the trial judge said:
* * * This court feels that it’s within the purview of the decisions of the so-*435called Earl Warren Court that no statement, oral or written, can he taken from anyone within these fifty states when the accusatory phase is commenced without the giving of Miranda warnings * * * * * * * *
* * * As long as I sit here, I will not receive any confessions by any school officer, any peace officer if such be based on a secret, private confession theretofore obtained, without giving the Miranda warning.
It seems to me that the trial judge did not fully understand the so-called Miranda rule, and so I concur in reversing the order made arresting the judgment. However, I dissent from the main opinion insofar as it remands the case for a new trial. These defendants have had their day in court and have been found guilty by a jury of their peers on evidence which was properly received. Another trial is not necessary. The case should be remanded with directions for the trial court to proceed with the imposition of such punishment for each defendant as to him may seem proper and just.

. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; Miranda v. Arizona, 383 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

. Commonwealth v. White, 353 Mass. 409, 232 N.E.2d 335 (Mass.1967) McElroy v. State, 204 So.2d 463 (Miss.1967); Ned-rud: The Supreme Court and the Law of Criminal Investigation, p. 189.

. By the verdicts the jury found that these defendants did not commit the rapes, but there is no question but that someone did.