Court Opinion

ID: 9732832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:38:21.810623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:39.980760
License: Public Domain

Brennan, J.
(concurring). I concur with my Brother Swainson for the reason given under II of his opinion.
Black, J.
(for release of the defendant). In the people’s brief this appeal1 is introduced aptly according to past appellate proceedings as Whisenant I ([1968], 11 Mich App 432), Whisenant II ([1969], 19 Mich App 182) and Whisenant III ([1970], 21 Mich App 518).
Let us dub this one Whisenant IV and out, effected by an order nolle, rather than order the continuation of a now provably vain prosecution. Judging by the cited appellate actions and now the instant majority decision, the people have no more *704chance of convictional success than did that parabled dog, equipped with wax legs, when he tried to chase the asbestos cat through Hell. Who knows or even may estimate whether — should Mr. Whisenant appeal successively to our two appellate Courts from yet another conviction for this 1965 offense — still another nunc pro tunc decision of retroactivity will emanate from high judicial Lansing, requiring another trial for the same offense ? It is manifest time for abject surrender, by the people, to Mr. Whisenant. Hopefully, he will not sue the people or their legal representatives for malicious prosecution. He will have two years within which to make up his mind on that, under MCLA § 600.5805 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5805).
I cannot agree with the summary statement of facts put forth in the first paragraph of the majority opinion. Let the actual testimony relate the circumstances which led up to Mr. Whisenant’s voluntarily written confession.2 (For that testimony see Whisenant I (1968), 11 Mich App at 434-436).. I suggest that he now go discharged rather than permit him to draw anew upon a steadily dwindling public treasury for still more of this squandermania of public money3 — upon useless *705trials and appeals. He is free by this Court’s order of April 21, 1970 *4 and doubtless will remain so (absent still another felony added to his record) should there be another trial and series of appeals resulting from this 1965 armed robbery.
Turning to the specific merits of the people’s stated question: Whether—with Mr. Whisenant’s confession made in February of 1966 and his prosecution commenced that same month—he is entitled to another (a third that is) trial because his first trial commenced seven days after Miranda (cited below) was handed down June 13, 1966.
In People v. Charlie Lee Woods (1969), 382 Mich 128, 138, 139, this Court ruled—unanimously:
“We align our judgment with those of the State courts which view Miranda as applying only to prosecutions commenced after Miranda became prospectively effective.” (Emphasis added.)
There is nothing ambiguous about this. Indeed, no one claims there is. It is instead coolly proposed and voted that the Court repudiate its solemn word, recorded less than two years ago. I stand by the united endorsement quoted; not today’s disavowal.
This man Whisenant, tried and convicted twice for this 1965 felony, is now awarded a third trial, all at direct expense of Kent County as new brilliandeers of the law cut more fancy facets on the diamonds of precedent, purposed always toward reduction of the weight and value thereof. Surely curious days of judicially encouraged crime have descended upon us, what with hypertechnically twisted rulings like this which—seemingly at least— *706are designed for but one purpose; that of discouraging and deterring prosecutions despite any number of guilty verdicts rendered by 12 good men and true.
As noted, Mr. Wbisenant was prosecuted in February of 1966. The felony for which he was prosecuted was committed December 21, 1965. His confession, the admissibility of which is challenged again under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 US 436 (86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974), was made when he was arrested in February of 1966. Miranda as said was handed down June 13, 1966. Its qualifier, Johnson v. New Jersey, was handed down seven days later, 384 US 719 (86 S Ct 1772, 16 L Ed 2d 882). Now in 1971 it is said that, since Whisenant’s first trial did not commence until June 27, 1966, seven days after Johnson arrested retroactivity of Miranda and its predecessors, the rule to apply to his first trial is other than the one which would have applied properly to his 1965 crime and his February 1966 prosecution for that crime. The Supreme Court of the United States has not ordered this, nor has it ever disavowed its word in Miranda as found by us in Woods. This Court simply plunges ahead of Miranda by ignoring Woods.
In People v. Taylor (1970), 383 Mich 338, 369, 370, Justice Dethmers and I noted the bitter experience of the Supreme Court of California for having relied upon Escobedo (1964), 378 US 478 (84 S Ct 1758, 12 L Ed 2d 977) as having been effected retroactively, “only to be let down when the Supreme Court belatedly ruled as in the Johnson case.” Why should we run that risk, warned now as California was, and warned again as we were by that California Law Review quoted in People v. Taylor, starting at 370?
*707It is enough to state today’s situation. Again, as it will he again, this Court bends the law in favor of the felon and against our far-flung peninsular community. No wonder crime runs rampant in Michigan. This 1971 Court seems unable to af- ' firm any conviction which, in the afterwitted view of its majority, has not been conducted and concluded with the celestial perfection of every trial that takes place at the 12 gates of Heaven. The situation doubtless is now beyond redemption. Are we not committed beyond return to that same flood of lawlessness as were the Romans when they suffered their decline, decay and utlimate fall — from withini
I would direct Mr. Whisenant’s release on motion nolle prosequi, partly to eliminate more waste of prosecutory, judicial and jury-duty time added to the sapping of additional public funds, and partly to terminate the legally presumptive cruelty of his prosecution. After all, the offense for which he has been twice convicted is hut common-place these days. It was only armed robbery.5 Probation at most should have been the wrist-slap for such a petty offense. The Kent County prosecutor and our “one court of justice” must already have given him a raw deal. Let him up, say I. Let up also on taxpaying law-abiding Kent County.

*708
APPENDIX

(Whisenant confession, held inadmissible. All portions typed below “statement” with light italics were handwritten by Mr. Whisenant.)
“GRAND RAPIDS POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: Eeb. 3, 1966 Time Beginning 1:15 AM/PM Time Ending 1:30 AM/PM Location (Office, Bldg., etc) Detective Bureau; Police Headquarters City, Village or Twp. & County_Kent County_
‘Statement’
My name is Albert Whisenant . I am 19 year of age. I live at 429 Cadwell N.W., Grand Rapids, Michigan.
I have been advised and I understand that I do not have to make any statement or answer any questions and that any statement I make or answers I give may be used in evidence against me in any criminal prosecution that may result from matters disclosed in this statement. I make the following statement freely and voluntarily, no threats or promises of any nature having been made to me by anyone, and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge.
Signature: Albert Whisenant

1 met Paul Boyer as I was coming in Tues., Dec. 21 and we began talking and joking and eventually led to something to do. It was approximately 1:00 a.m. then and he showed me a gun and we went riding around. I do not remember who suggested we commit this crime but as we passed the Crystal Flash we noticed only one station attendant and that this particular station was in a fairly secluded 
*709
location. We returned and parked the car and walked to the station and Paul walked in and told the man it was a stickup while I entered the cash drawer and took the money from it. At first the attendant though we were joking because he came toward Paul and Paul fired into the far corner of the garage and the attendant then told us he would give us the money. We told him no and left the station running and from there proceeded back to our home address. We got $85.00 from the station and divided it in my room at 429 Gadwell N.W.

Albert Whisenant

R. Woronko 2-3-66 1:30 P.M”

 Leave granted April 21, 1970 (383 Mich 776).

 Yes, he penned all of it neatly, with no pretense of duress, dictation, or interference. The very face of the instrument belies all thought of that. There isn’t a misspelled word or grammatical error in it, or even a minor correction of the running narrative. See the appendix hereof for a copy, with specific designation of everything handwritten and signed by Mr. Whisenant.
It is hardly necessary to add that I agree fully with Judge Quinn, dissenting in Whisenant II and Whisenant III, that this confession, made February 3, 1966 in the unusual circumstances of utter voluntariness disclosed by this record, was properly admitted in evidence each time Mr. Whisenant was tried.

 It is not difficult for one familiar with the fees lawyers must charge today, their ever-expanding overhead considered (see to the fact Babcock v. Public Bank [1964], 366 Mich 124, 134), to estimate that with the conclusion of this present appeal the people’s thus far futile prosecution of Mr. Whisenant will have cost Kent County *705in excess of $10,000. And this case is just one of scores and more like it, as our own ever-expanding records attest.

 The order provided that the trial court admit the defendant to bail.—Reporter.

 When Mr. Whisenant committed this particular offense he had been out on parole but a week, following an earlier conviction for another felony.