Court Opinion

ID: 9717183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:59:47.235356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.916059
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. The parties agree that under Edwards v. Arizona (1981), 451 U.S. 477, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, 101 S. Ct. 1880, the statement upon which defendant’s conviction rests was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The majority rests its affirmance of the judgment of the appellate court on Solem v. Stumes (1984), 465 U.S. 638, 79 L. Ed. 2d 579, 104 S. Ct. 1338, in which the Supreme Court held that Edwards did not apply to a habeas corpus proceeding collaterally attacking a State judgment. The sine qua non of a principle enunciated in a judicial opinion which would limit the retroactive application is that it be new and a departure from an established rule. In his dissent in Solem v. Stumes, Justice Stevens demonstrated that the holding in Edwards is not a new constitutional rule. Assuming, arguendo, that Edwards announced a rule new to the Federal judiciary, the rule of Edwards is not new in Illinois. In this case defendant was taken into custody at approximately 5 p.m. and approximately an hour thereafter was advised of his rights. He was questioned several times during that evening and was finally placed in a cell shortly before midnight. Sometime during this period of interrogation he asked to use the telephone and to speak to an attorney. The officers talked with him again at 11 a.m. the following day and asked him if he wanted to talk. He was interrogated several times during the course of the day, and the statement in question was taken at approximately 9 p.m. that evening. On at least two occasions, this court has applied the allegedly “new” rule of Edwards. In People v. Henenberg (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 5, this court held that a statement obtained in the course of interrogation subsequent to the defendant’s request to see a lawyer should have been suppressed. In People v. Washington (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 186, it was held that a statement made during interrogation which continued after defendant’s request for counsel must be suppressed. I submit that in Edwards the Supreme Court adopted the interpretation of Miranda found in Henenberg and Washington which has prevailed in this jurisdiction since 1973. Assuming, arguendo, that the rule is new, fundamental justice proscribes holding that the same statement, admittedly taken under circumstances which this court in 1973 held to be in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights, serves to sustain the conviction in the one case, but not in the other. The defendant’s constitutional rights were just as effectively violated in the conviction which was involved in the post-conviction proceeding as in the one on direct appeal. The fortuitous circumstance that his direct appeal has been concluded should not deprive him of his constitutional rights. In his dissent in Solem v. Stumes (1984), 465 U.S. 638, 79 L. Ed. 2d 579, 104 S. Ct. 1338, Justice Stevens stated far more eloquently than can I the reason why this judgment is wrong and should be reversed. Justice Stevens said: “The Court is understandably concerned about the conduct of private law breakers. That concern should not, however, divert its attention from the overriding importance of requiring strict obedience to the law by those officials who are entrusted with its enforcement — and indeed, with its interpretation. For decisions of this kind have a corrosive effect in a society dedicated to the rule of law. There is, after all, profound wisdom in Justice Brandéis’ observation: ‘Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.’ Olmstead v. United States [(1928), 277 U.S. 438, 485, 72 L. Ed. 944, 959-60, 48 S. Ct. 564, 575 (Brandéis, J., dissenting)]. I respectfully dissent.” 465 U.S. 638, 667, 79 L. Ed. 2d 579, 603, 104 S. Ct. 1338,1354. JUSTICE SIMON joins in this dissent.