*1 Ct. v. 331 U.S. S. Bayer, 540, in United States let has once : accused (1947) “[A]fter the no matter what bag by confessing the cat out of is never thereafter free of the psycho he inducement, confessed. disadvantagе having logical practical secret the cat back The bag. never get He can al In a sense a later confession such good. out for first.” looked as fruit of the upon bemay ways mаde the defendant what during The admissions are illegal interrogations to be concedes majority the statements made distinguishable clearly relied Frazier, supra, upon by Commonwealth nothing Court “. . . this found: Frаzier, In majority. in- he was warned was used to said before appellant link was shown between him. No other criminate subjected without appellant to which questioning . . .” Id. at subsequent confession. and his warnings link; is а definite at 35. Here there 279 A. 2d encouraged damaging were surely inter- defendant during made by statements effects psychological importantly More rogations. almost vitiated certainly admissions earlier voluntary. confession was defendant’s chance that defendant’s statement as must agrees majority actually person known have he and murder “could be viewed robbery perpetrаted On record ma- admission.” this damaging aas for all practical pur- also concede should jority bag.” out of “the cat was poses I dissent. Rowe. Appellant,
Argued May 1971. Before J., Eagen, C. Bеll, Pomeroy O’Brien, Roberts, JJ. Barbieri, Richman, David Assistant District Attorney, with Stein, him Milton M. Assistant District James Attorney, Crawford, D. District Deputy Attorney, Richard A. First Assistant District Sprague, Attorney, Arlen for District Attorney, Specter, Commonwealth, аppel- lant.
45'6 A. Rosin, ap-
Robert with him J. for Boyle, James pellee.
Opinion
1971:
October
Mr. Justice
Barbieri,
mur-
robbery
with the
Appellee, Rowe,
charged
der of
in December
two
store
candy
proprietors
to sup-
1964.
the denial
various motions
Following
tried before a
press,
judge
jury
de-
in the first
found
guilty
Philadelphia,
Post-
to a term of life
prison.
and sentenced
gree
the court en banc granted
trial motions were filed and
the mur-
motion for a
trial
ruling
new
should not have been admitted
der weapon,
revolver,
under
into evidence because the search warrant
infirm. Our
constitutionally
it had been obtained was
en
affirmed the order of the court
bаnc. Com-
Rowe,
The court interpreted below in this authorities area as the use of proscribing illegally seized evidence manner. See Sun United su States, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. pra; States, United 251 U.S. (1920). The lower court “By concluded: defendant which was showing gun, illegally seized, the course of statement during it was before officers used the gun signed, obtaining the statement. We cannot say what motivated the de only knowledge fendant but the police had have motivated him. may There no gun doubt used to motivate him. help *4 Therefore, ‘formal’ statement is the fruit signed is suppressed.” (Emphasis by and search court be low). here are in not dispute. Appellee
The facts ar was a,t 1:30 A.M. on approximately Decembеr 24, rested to police transported headquarters Phila initially appellee delphia. interro At 2:00 A.M., preliminarily gated who Detective McG-urk, right right remain silent and his warned him his to appellee The detective informed counsel. including police the mur had certain information, illegally de seized.2 ***The der been nothing and did the revolver tective said more about appellee appellee con The it at this time. not shOAV to superior in his to the detective who called fessed appellee’s confes oral officer in turn listened to who writing. began reduce that statemеnt to sion and then During obtaining statement, the written the course signed, or con shown it before was but weapon.3 fronted Avith reaching felt conclusion, The its below, court to determine mind it not into could delvе actually did him to confess and forces motivated what necessary it whether was to determine feel it was not likely because he was confessed more determine, The did or told shown police mo- that the was used however, appellee to confess. we read Bun As tivate the progeny, courts, in our court and various federal its and rea- correct its conclusion court below was soning. Bishop, A. 2d
In Commonwealth folloAving: (1967), at 182-83, our Court stated, supra, not we read does Sun, as “However, necessarily all or se- confessions admissions follow person per illegally se inad- arrested are cured from appears for evidence. It to us as trial missible a causal connection between so there must be such interrogation ten minutes and in the course lasted The initiаl appellee: gun.” interrogation detective told “We have of that completely given by had been A.M. 2:30 oral statements writing reducing it to at time. commenced
459 confession or ad subsequent аrrest and the illegal ar Court Supreme and that Sun the mission, ticulated at wherein a post-illegal least two instances If the admissible: confession is (1) arrest confession is an act of free purge рrimary ‘sufficiently will or 486; taint the unlawful invasion.’ 371 U.S. at If the ‘connection the arrest and the state (2) between ment dissipate had “become so attenuated as 371 at 491.” omitted). U.S. taint’”, (Footnotes burden on the Court below concluded Commonwealth to show that the connection between arrest and confession or dissi is so tenuous as to vague or volun the taint show that the confession was a patе act of free will.4 tary of ille
Although case involves the use present seized rather gally evidence to a confession procure than an illegal should arrest, principles Sun and do equаl force such circumstances. apply Here the evidence shows that clearly illegally seized was shown to the while he was his he been written statement and that had told giving Thus, to that time that prior gun. сonnection the causal shown and the Common wealth had the burden of proving primary or taint had been the confession was dissipated not but also free of element only “truly voluntary,
4 in footnotе noted The Court below there were two ma jor determining relationship to consider between the factors subsequent “(a) proximity confession: arrest and an initial procurement illegal cоnfession; (b) to the of the custodial act subsequent illegal of other circumstances ar the intervention provide illegality a cause so unrelated to that rest initial may reasonably acquirеd not evidence said to di have been thereby rectly from, by, tainted derived arrest.” Craig Maroney, Quoting ex rel. F. 2d Phelper 1965). also, Decker, (5th (3d See F. 2d Cir. 1968). Cir. illegally due use eoerciveness”5 to the seizеd factually
The court below found that tbe help speak. Con- used to motivate tbe *6 sidering proximity tbe tbe of tbe use of tbe independent intervening confession and the lack of say circumstances to tbe confession we cannot motivate suppressing that tbe court below erred written tbis being scope of is confession as tainted. Our review determining limited to tbe decision of tbe whethеr capricious tbe or was below a disbelief of evidence “was upon palpable discretion or based abuse Taper, v. error law.” Commonwealth (1969). tbis we no error A. On basis find 2d 90 ruling of tbe cоurt. in tbe lower Order affirmed. part no in tbe
Mr. Justice took consideration Jones or decision of this case. Eagen Opinion Concurring Mr. : Justice join opinion how- of Mr. in tbe Justice Barbieri, I opinion herein noted I that tbe think it should
ever, completely that of Commonwealth consistent with (1971). A. 2d Pa. Marabel, unlike in tbe Marabel, In case, tbe instant illegality employed confes- initial Rowe’s tbe secure Additionally, again causal unlike in tbe Marabel sion. illegality confes- the initial Rowe’s nexus between complete Lastly, herein at a Rowe was is clear. sion disadvantage tbe psychological when confronted po- possession of tbe tbe impermissible through constitutional means. lice Bishop, at 183. Pa. Com.