Arnold Lee Vance v. Donald E. Bordenkircher, Warden, West Virginia State Penitentiary

unjust parent. It is these benefit acts, fundamentally just unfair directorships undercapitali-

interlocking aside us to set which causes

zation DeWitt, Cf., supra; Ber- corporate cloak. Corp., 520 F.2d

nardin, v. Midland Oil Inc. Cir.1975) (absence of fraud unjustly stripped the parent where

deceit assets). We subsidiary its

the insolvent South, the acts of Point Inc. and

find that Company herein were Pines mentioned

Sea

fundamentally unfair and the determina- contrary District Court to the

tion of the

REVERSED. of the District Court is RE-

The decision AND REMANDED order

VERSED enter for

the District Court Company Pines for against Sea plaintiff costs, deficiency, interest and and.deter- is or should be plaintiff if the entitled

mine fees. attorney’s AND REMANDED.

REVERSED VANCE, Appellant, Lee

Arnold BORDENKIRCHER, Warden, E.

Donald Virginia Penitentiary, State

West

Appellee. 81-6819.

No. Appeals, Court of

United States

Fourth Circuit. Feb.

Argued 12, 1982. Decided Nov. Jr., Richmond, Va. Shepherd, E. Robert Gates, Klare, Third D. Kathe Year (Richard Rehearing Rehearing En Banc Students, brief), appellant. for on Law 3,1983. Denied Feb. Woodroe, Gen., Atty. Asst. S. Clark Charleston, (Chauncey Browning, W.Va. H. Gen., Charleston, W.Va., brief), Jr., Atty. appellee. WIDENER, and ER- SPROUSE Before VIN, Judges. Circuit WIDENER, Judge: Circuit trooper who investigating the murders. trooper The then listened in on the ques- Lee Vance filed Arnold this habeas cor- but tioning of Vance sight. was out of pursuant to 28 pus petition U.S.C. § asserting for that his conviction first during It was this questioning that Vance result degree murder was the involun- first revealed that he and another individu- The tary confession. district court denied gone al had to the Wingrove house intend- requested relief. the Vance v. Bordenkirch- ing to borrow some money. The murders er, F.Supp. (N.D.W.Va.1981). We instead, happened although, at point this affirm. questioning, the Vance the claimed that actually other individual shot the victims. statement, This which was made between 20,1961, May the Dr. Archer On bodies of p.m., 7:30 and 8:00 was later reduced to Wingrove and his housekeeper A. were dis- at writing beginning approximately 9:15 in Dr. home near Wingrove’s covered Scar- p.m. Questioning continued intermittently boro, Virginia. Both victims had been West through evening, the and Vance eventually head, housekeeper shot in the also drew, assisted in or was drawing, a floor had beaten about’the An exten- head. Wingrove plan of the home. During this investigation by local police sive and state purchased period, Vance several soft drinks ten during ensuing months failed to candy, and also brought and some cof- at any F.Supp. lead to arrests. 505 135-37. fee and sandwiches The officers. who later trooper, joined state 29,1962, question- petitioner March Vance

On ing, testified Vance did not appear as a in several suspect breakings arrested tired sleepy during be the questioning. Wingrove enterings unrelated to the Finally, Vance made a second statement on home murders. He was arrested at his transpired Hill, the events at Virginia Win- Oak West and taken statement, In this grove at home. which was police approximately Hill station Oak writing reduced to between 1:50 p.m. petitioner’s 4:45 The mother in- and 2:30 he, arrested, a.m., being that he was but Vance stated formed she accompany actually him had police companion, did not to the shot Dr. Wingrove station. housekeeper. told the petitioner police trooper The chief of The state years (even old Hill though he was he was and the Oak chief both testified 15), and permission the chief obtained confessions the various were offered place jail. voluntarily, any from the court to him in without force or threat acknowledged chief force, any The that he was without offer aware of reward any that the attended a school for the other leniency, or inducement. The mentally retarded. next was taken to the state day, Vance station, where, at request, he was police chief The testified prior any examination. given polygraph part As he advised Vance that Vance examination, Vance made a statement right to had the remain silent again admitted the which he murders. making to be advised any before statements which Vance also made amount- proceeded chief ques- statements. to a newspaper reporter ed to confessions on the breakings enterings tion jail, at the and to an inmate but these and, the conclusion questions, at of these not at issue. Vance, routine, as a asked matter of if he anything Wingrove trial, knew about mur- ensuing At the both written confes- The chief testified ders. that Vance “acted oral sions and the confession were intro- funny little about it” when asked Prior to the duced into evidence. introduc- murders, so, following each, some additional judge tion of excused jury questions, placed jail Vance was pending testimony as to the heard extensive volun- further The latter questioning surrounding circumstances tariness and after took the chief had called a The judge state decided confessions. that suffi- groundwork had been for cient laid 92 L.Ed. that the issue statements and of voluntari- (1948). Finally, the evaluation as to question jury. jury ness whether the confession was voluntary must was instructed consider “all the circum- be on the made basis alleged under which the stances circumstances the confession. surrounding and admissions were made 1213; and determine at Gallegos, nature, import their exact and meaning.” Miller, United States v. jury The returned a degree verdict of first Cir.), denied, (4th 923, cert. murder, was sentenced to (1972). 123 1790, L.Ed.2d 32 imprisonment. life appellant placed great emphasis has does The record not disclose whether the capacity appealed to conviction was Virgin- West in the time of the order to dem- confessions 1970, Supreme ia In Court. federal dis- time, At onstrate involuntariness. corpus petition trict court denied a habeas A years psychiatrist Vance was 15 old. by Vance which based on a claim that 62, IQ testified he had a full scale wrongfully protec- Vance had been denied deficiency, with moderate mental Virginia dealing tion statutes West with empha- of nine. Vance has also youthful peti- offenders. length conditions of inter- sized the Supreme tioned the Virginia West Court preceding the rogation confession. While corpus relief, denied, for habeas which was he has cited numerous cases where confes- justices dissenting. two with by youthful mentally sions retarded indi- brought action was in February held be involuntary, viduals petition. the district court denied hold, law, aas matter of none of these cases Bordenkircher, 505 F.Supp. Vance v. 135 are involuntary. confessions evaluating record, After Maryland, In Miller v. (4th district court concluded that it not pre- Cir.1978), upheld finding this court say pared findings of voluntari- in the year voluntariness confession of a 16 were ness erroneous. charge noted, old murder. We “But not ‘[y]outh by ground itself is for holding II v. Pey Williams confession inadmissible.’ The trial of Vance took ton, (4th F.2d Cir.1968).” September 1962 thus neither Escobedo F.2d at 1159. Similarly, in United States v. Illinois, v. S.Ct. 12 Miller, Cir.1972), F.2d up we v, (1964), Arizona, L.Ed.2d 977 nor Miranda of a 14 old’s convic validity year held the 16 L.Ed.2d 694 juvenile delinquency tion relative are applicable determining wheth possession of mail and the forging stolen er confession was Vance’s obtained illegally. uttering of stolen Treasury checks. Jersey, v. Johnson New 86 We said: 16 L.Ed.2d 882 So the prepared boy We are hold that a question to be resolved is whether or capable fourteen is never making not the were voluntary. re intelligent waiver of rights. Al- solving whether a question confes though age of the individual is a influence, sion was the result of undue we factor be taken into account as- must determine the independently ultimate certaining if the voluntary, waiver was issue of voluntariness. Thomas North no court has held that age alone is deter- Carolina, 1320, 1322(4th 447 F.2d Cir.1971). minative. Furthermore, important it is to recognize Id. at 636. by juveniles that confessions require special scrutiny by the Gallegos courts. v. Colora mentally On the issue of deficient individ- do, 52-53, crimes, 1211- confessing uals United States 1212, 8 (1962); Haley Ohio, Young, we of, rogation period). and held in a 17 hour While the voluntariness considered the until charge of confession did not occur several admissible, pos- to a second a confession questioning, the initial mail. We said: hours after of stolen session indication know some- initial Young had a below-av- defendant While in response about the murders came thing reading I.Q., limited education erage questioning question during to a routine not in them- problems, these factors and his ac- totally unrelated crimes of the voluntariness determinative selves after short knowledgment relatively came waiver, for one must examine the Furthermore, there period surrounding totality of the circumstances in the record that Vance is no indication the waiver. tired, food, denied that he was or that omitted).1 (footnotes Id. at 195 See, requested end. Looking at the of the cir Moore, 658 F.2d at 221-22. e.g., in the instant we do not cumstances handling think Vance’s at the hands We be said that Vance’s believe altogether seems to have been police As involuntary. was noted confession pressure, rough with no lan- proper, quite level above, intelligence does his threats, inducements, tricks, or the guage, involuntary the confession as a make not Indeed, the chief of like, used at all. of law. Vance was advised of his matter you if didn’t do that “Boy, him: told any questions posed not to answer it, anything know don’t tell you don’t him, proceeded yet questions answer you did do it. Don’t play any us that enterings.2 breakings and Unlike on the thing.” princi- It is a serious games. Ballone, F.2d 218 Cir. Moore which tends to show that the con- pal fact Carolina, v. North 1981), and Thomas involuntary is may have been fessions there F.2d was no effort that, but we think capacity, Vance’s to restrict Vance’s made access to outside not entirely the issue is free from while Rather, during questioning. adults doubt, support the the record does not con- mother of arrest was made aware not clusion that did realize what he accompany not to him voluntarily she chose or that he doing against was confessed jail. especially have also considered will. We important Another difference between period questioning. and the Vance’s finding some this case and confessions in- rather than sustained intermittent But the is that voluntary Vance’s initial confession think, youthful age, we questioning, not come at the end of an did extended with all the other facts in the together case Colorado, interrogation. E.g., Gallegos v. support a finding will not involuntariness 1209, 1212, overreaching kind on the absent some (1962) (five day detention); part simply which has not been Thomas, (14 447 F.2d at 1321 hours of inter- We are thus of find opinion shown. argues petitioner appellant “heavy proving this deci- 1. The court’s burden” of right Ballone, knowingly his Miranda waived sion in had Moore v. Miranda, 384 U.S. at at 228. See per counsel. Id. circuit establishes se standard Here, inquiry is 86 S.Ct. at 1628. against the admission of confessions mental- voluntary, be- was whether the confession case, ly present how- deficient individuals. The above, cause, protect- Vance was not as noted ever, clearly distinguishable from Moore. Furthermore, requirements. ed the Miranda argument appellant’s is the The basis for the here, petitioner, unlike the the Moore that, “The in the statement in Moore evidence unsuccessfully for the asked condition, standing record Moore’s mental end. alone, for the state court should have sufficed knowingly not have determine that he could record contradict- 2. There is no evidence rights.” intelligently waived prosecution’s as to what tran- ing the witnesses Moore, at 229. At issue in unlike questioning. Vance did not spired during the met the state had testify. were Five voluntarily that Vance’s confessions and one-half hours later on the 30, 1962, morning of given.3 March Vance sub- polygraph mitted to a examination and district court is ac- Wingrove then was driven to the residence cordingly for further AFFIRMED. for The sole issue review is whether on March Vance’s confession ERVIN, Judge, dissenting: Circuit it constituted a viola- voluntary, or whether amendment to the tion of the fourteenth I respectfully dissent. Constitution, provides that no state years Arnold Vance was fifteen old at the deprive any person shall of liberty without interrogation. time of his arrest and He process due of law. 62, a IQ nine, possessed an my opinion, of circum- reading ability of a grader. first will support stances this case custody He taken into March conclusion that Arnold confession 1962, at 4:45 for p.m. questioning about requirements within the voluntary neighborhood. recent break-ins in Prior process. fundamental fairness due told that he had the Mississippi, Brown and the right to remain silent to be 80 L.Ed. 682 Arnold Vance was advised by interroga- counsel. Intermittent both a an individual child and with low tion then took next nine hours. subjected mental faculties. He was to nine Early evening, Vance implied in- interrogation lasting hours of intermittent volvement the May murders of friend, No deep night. parent into the or Dr. Archer and his Wingrove housekeeper. attorney assist him. This signed At a p.m., 9:15 Vance statement configuration repels of circumstances composed by police waiving his right suggestion that Vance voluntarily confessed against self-incrimination and admitting his Wingrove to the murders. participation in the murders. He main- outset, suggest At the I that there are tained, however, that murders were aspects to two the evaluation of confessions co-defendant, committed Roger under fourteenth is amendment. One Belcher. continued. did police: the behavior of authorities em- Vance fed soft drinks and candy; none ploy techniques psychological officers later could recall if Vance abuse in order to obtain the confession?1 had a during solid meal nine hour inter- In Vance’s case we must length consider the rogation, though thought of them one that interrogation,2 ques- method of provided sandwiches were him. Through- deprivation tioning,3 any food time, out this Vance amiable and coop- agree sleep.4 balance, I with the major- On erative. ity that these alone do not prove factors Finally, midnight, after Vance stated Howeyer, Vance’s confession coerced. he, companion, not his was the murder- aspect there is a inquiry, second our er of Dr. and his Wingrove housekeeper. namely, did Vance have the capacity a.m., signed At a 2:30 Vance revised state- voluntary make a confession? Even ment to that effect. minimal, is where we police pressure must passing quite 49, U.S., 1209, 3. We note in Gallegos well 2. U.S. 82 370 S.Ct. 8 represented attorneys at the criminal trial. His L.Ed.2d 325 prepared. were alert and well Ballone, (4th 3. Moore v. 658 F.2d 218 at n.2 See, e.g., Mississippi, Cir.1981). Brown v. 297 U.S. (1936); 56 S.Ct. 80 682 L.Ed. Chambers v. Florida, 84 716 Carolina, L.Ed. 4. Thomas v. 447 North F.2d 1320 (1939); York, Spano v. New 79 Cir.1971). S.Ct. 3 the defend- believe that fails to weigh with ourselves concern Instead, totality. evidence in its capacity comprehend possessed ant piecemeal approach. For ex court takes rights by and to waive those majority correctly cites ample, authori In Vance’s we must look confession.5 holding alone is insufficient ty develop- and mental particularly a confession that is invalidate otherwise not ment, and at absence of counsel In Miller v. Maryland, coerced. in his interrogation. him assist (4th Cir.1978), the court endorsed the inquiries mutually are these exclu- Nor sixteen-year-old, U.S. confession techniques seem sive. Police Miller, cert. as nine in themselves —-such innocuous denied, question- noncoercive hours of intermittent (1972), a fourteen-year-old L.Ed.2d with ing may take on different hue when — grade capa seventh education was found is a object fifteen-year-old of low in- their waiving Miranda rights.7 ble of Miran See telligence prior experience without in deal- Arizona, 1602, 16 da ing with and without benefit of coun- (1966) (statements L.Ed.2d made under words, In other is the sel.6 interrogation custodial inadmissible absent circumstances —external circumstances safeguards to priv secure procedural use of behavior and internal circumstances self-incrimination). However, against ilege capacity guides our exami- of these cases addressed the neither —that combi of the voluntariness nation of Vance’s con- intelligence. nation of and subnormal Maryland in Miller v. fession. The adolescents confession, validating 5. Blackburn v. the court understanding apparent L.Ed.2d the seminal case stressed Miller’s incapacity. noting and mental rights, that: Blackburn, history of men- the defendant had The mere recital of the form of official subjected tal to nine hours of illness. He was warning, presentation copy or the presence sustained without read, warning no additional effort to be with finally signed a confession com- interrogating officer at clarification posed by lengthy police. unin- from the Aside many enough cases insure not be terrupted police employed questioning, the no knows and understands techniques his confession. coercive to induce any possible consequences statement he of Nevertheless, Supreme the con- the Court held terminology may Legal such as the make. focusing involuntary, psychologi- on fession the warnings “right that state- to counsel” mentally make-up cal ill defendant: of the against you in court” ments be “used “[Tjhis difficulty be can without carefully explained accept- before should be unreliability in articulated terms of ques- ing the bare an affirmative answer to confession, rational the lack of choice your rights?” tion, you Id. understand “Do accused, simply strong conviction that a at 636. system of law enforcement should not our here, In contrast Vance did not dem- marked operate advantage person in this to take rights comprehension or their onstrate a Id. at 80 S.Ct. at 280. fashion.” by signing the other than confession —a waiver 352 U.S. In Fikes v. confession, appear, that he could not it would (1957), there was no evi- 1 L.Ed.2d 246 he time was asked to show read. At no other yet brutality, the confession dence of right to remain that he his silent. understood because, alia, involuntary inter de- was held trial, testified that he could At Vance’s teacher mentality,” “weaker and fendant was of “low meaning of the waiver not have understood subject” susceptible in- than had been more rights to his written confession. of attached Louisiana, prior volved in cases where identical Tague v. techniques upheld. were Supreme Court held 62 L.Ed.2d 622 any depend upon weigh- incumbent on the state to demon- that it was limits in case “The intelligent by knowing pressure against ing strate and waiver some of of the circumstances suspect capable person showing power that the of under- confess- of of resistance course, overpowering rights. holding, ing. standing This of Would be to the weak What utterly post-dates but it be ineffective nevertheless il- of will or mind against experienced importance Stein criminal.” v. lustrates the comprehension of demonstrations of York, rights of New the issue of volun- 97 L.Ed. 1522 tariness. appeared v. Miller possess Vance, both nor a “slow learner.” on the other mal mental faculties. hand, offered uncontradicted evidence that IQhis under the Wechsler Adult majority also cites authority holding Test, Intelligence indicating moderate men- persons very intelligence low are Second, tal impor- retardation. most making capable voluntary confessions. tant, appear nor Young Mosley neither Young, The defendant F.2d juveniles have of their on dates had a “below aver- confessions; ages their were not mentioned IQ, reading prob- limited education and by capable the courts which found them lems,” but the held court these factors in making voluntary confessions. themselves not determinative and concluded that the of circumstances surround- I believe fails to ac- ing Young’s rights waiver of established knowledge importance in assess- Young, voluntariness. the defendant ing capacity of the mental retarded individ- when asked authorities that told he did voluntary uals to render confessions. The rights; understand Miranda subsequent- recognized susceptibility courts ly, he read aloud court much of the inexperienced juveniles signed waiver form he had repeated Similarly, the techniques.9 vulnerability of judge that he his rights.8 understood mentality of low to suggestions individuals Mosley Slayton, authority figures from F.Supp. (W.D. well-document- Va.1972) (cited combination, ed.10 In Young, but not Arnold Vance’s by the majority), present also and mental upheld infirmity picture waiver of person pliant eagerness please inquisitors. of limited faculties. Mosley had a If were seventh older and grade emotionally education more mature, was known as a “slow or if he intelligent, learner.” were more Prior to I waiving might discern in right right to silence and him sufficient presence counsel, Mosley confession, mind to execute a voluntary asked but authorities if I rights, my understood these cannot faith in the respond- inculpatory affirmatively. ed statement with the mind of nine-year-old.

Young Mosley distinguishable the present First, from not, case two counts. however, rely do solely on Vance’s the extent deficiency of the mental is not youth and mental impairment weighing specified beyond facts Young constitutionality his confession.11 intelligence” of “below average Mosley Additional factors are in this case 8. See n. 7 supra. right defendant’s waiver of both the to remain page silent to counsel. At See, e.g., Ohio, Haley court states: 92 L.Ed. 224 We also think even had the Miranda 10. See, e.g., warnings timely Moore, given Fikes been to he S.Ct. would entitled to the writ nonetheless be convincing clear because evidence in the 11. In Moore v. Ballone, 658 F.2d 218 Cir. persuades record did us that Moore not 1981), suggested the court that severe a knowingly intelligently privi- waive his handicap insanity might short of in and of itself lege against right his self-incrimination and confession, stating be sufficient to invalidate a to counsel. in “[t]he evidence the record of Moore’s Obviously, the of voluntariness Vance’s waiver condition, alone, standing should have right of to remain silent is at issue here. sufficed for the court state to determine that he Furthermore, disingenuous majority of it is the knowingly intelligently could not have spurn to Moore rights, it focuses on of because waiver rights.” waived Id. at 229. At footnote principal since two of the Miranda three majority the easily here dismisses Moore as upon by majority (U.S. cases v. Mil- relied the distinguishable, claiming that the issue there Young) precisely ler and U.S. v. concern solely whether Moore had waived his Mi- knowingly defendant and intelli- right counsel, randa to while Vance was not rights. gently waived Miranda protected by requirements. Miranda fact, examining the court in Moore was by the recognized voluntary.12 been courts as the susceptibility have Where to po- against finding militating of voluntari- is pressure undoubtedly great, lice as in the teenage boy ness. case with past expe- of little in dealing authorities, rience with the glar- U.S., Gallegos of ing failure authorities to summon coun- petitioner, 8 L.Ed.2d fundamentally sel is unfair. fourteen, made oral confession as soon as he arrested. He was informed The states: right to of his counsel but did not ask to see important difference Another between After lawyer. had detained finding case and this some for at least five days, during involuntary is that initial confes- lawyer, he saw parent, which time no at the end of an ex- sion did not come friendly adult, signed other a formal interrogation, e.g., Gallegos tended Supreme Court confession. held Colorado, S.Ct. [82 circumstances, the con- under these formal (1962) (five day 8 L.Ed.2d de- 325] was obtained in fession violation of due Thomas, tention); (14 age of the process. The defendant and the peri- of in a 17 hour interrogation hours of length gave the incarceration were what od). While the second did confession cast,” the case its “ominous but the Court until occur several hours after the initial also stressed the absence counsel: questioning, Vance’s initial indication that he something know adolescent would have [The defendant] murders came ... after a relatively short way knowing no what the conse- period quences confession were without advice someone rights as Leaving question —from aside the of what con- securing concerned with him those interrogation,”13 stitutes “extended the ma- aid rights without the of more ma- —and emphasis jority’s on Vance’s inculpatory steps ture as to the he should early on in the interrogation statements predicament take in which he light where, misplaced Gallegos,

found himself.... Without some adult Supreme U.S. at protection against 14- inequality, this Court stated: boy know, be year-old would not able to says prosecution youth assert, let alone such constitutional immaturity as he had. Id. at at 1212. five-day irrelevant, detention because Although the Court go did not so as ingredients far the basic of the confession presence require counsel in all tumbling out as came soon as he even interrogation cases where the But if we took position arrested. appears would, deference, waive to an with all be in callous attorney, by police bring failure coun- disregard boy’s constitutional other friendly sel or some adult against cuts compared be with an rights. He cannot government’s case confession was possession of his senses adult full Supreme recently 12. The Court of Vermont has held that a minor accused of a question juvenile’s right guardi- considered crime cannot waive without a presence guardian responsible responsible advis an or a now [W]e advisor.... E.T.C., (Vt.1982), principles or. In In apply Re A.2d that the hold same guarantee court state interrogation juvenile suspects. invoked its constitutional Id. at counsel, stating that: hours of intermittent Nine free, are, Being interpret precise as we p.m. five until two a.m. strikes me from as meaning equivalent of our own constitutional Ohio, 596, Haley v. U.S. “extended.” See 332 long proscriptions so no as federal are trans- 302, (1957) (confession 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. gressed inability recognizing ... and of a interrogation in the obtained after five hours choose, advice, among without night light invalidated all middle action, legal alternative courses of we have circumstances, including length interroga- approved juvenile’s rep- summoning tion). prior questioning resentative court] [in knowledgeable consequences by admonition, Chastened I conclude Arnold Vance’s confession was not an admissions. volition, conscious but one of unintel- act of by concludes commenting the encourage- before ligent capitulation pressure, of police rough on the absence I would reverse the dis- police. ments of tricks, and language, threats or induce- conditionally grant court and trict writ But, in this case. as I already ments corpus a new pending by trial of habeas noted, the Constitution does invalidate Virginia. of West State confessions extracted tor- 14or intentionally psychologi- ture inflicted duress.15 The inquiry cal to be made is prod- the confession has been “the

uct a rational intellect and a will.” free 208, v.

Blackburn (1960). L.Ed.2d 242 I too objectionable no

find tactics employed interrogators. What do is a ZUNIGA, find Plaintiff-Appellant, Rita teenage sub- boy with the mind child v. jected to nine hours intermittent interro- HOSPITAL, KLEBERG COUNTY gation the benefit of without KINGSVILLE, TEXAS, Ohio, support.16 Haley adult Defendant-Appellee. 596, 68 S.Ct. 224 (1948), L.Ed. No. 81-2061. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a fifteen.year youth who, old being without United of Appeals, States Court apprised of his to remain silent and Fifth Circuit. of the presence without the benefit of coun- Dec. sel, confessed to murder after five hours of night. in the middle of the Justice Frankfurter in concurrence wrote: a confession of a lad fifteen

[WJhether admissible, “voluntary” as such wanting proc-

“coerced” and thus due

ess, is not a matter of de- mathematical

termination. Essentially psy- invites chological judgment psychological —a

judgment deep, that reflects even inar- if

ticulate, feelings of society. Judges our

may divine that feeling they as best can all the

from relevant evidence light bear they bring can for a confi- issue, of such

dent and with

every endeavor detach themselves merely their private

from views. at Id.

603, 68 S.Ct. at 305. Mississippi, 14. Brown v. Peyton, 56 S.Ct. 16. See Williams 404 F.2d Cir.1968) (confession L.Ed. 682 involuntary found to be at where defendant was fifteen time of arrest See, grammar school, e.g., Florida, prior enrolled in had no Chambers v. record, (1939); incommunicado Spano criminal was held 84 L.Ed. York, days during which time least three New intermittently questioned being without rights). apprised of constitutional

Case Details

Case Name: Arnold Lee Vance v. Donald E. Bordenkircher, Warden, West Virginia State Penitentiary

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 3, 1983

Citation: 692 F.2d 978

Docket Number: 81-6819

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.