Culombe v. Connecticut

CULOMBE CONNECTICUT. Argued January

No. 161. June 1961. Decided Alexander A. argued the cause and filed a brief Goldfarb petitioner. John D. LaBelle argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

John J. Hunt filed a brief for the Connecticut Asso- ciation for Retarded Children, curiae, as amicus urging reversal. announced judgment

Mr. Justice Frankfurter the Court and an opinion which Mr. Justice Stewart joins. again

Once the Court is confronted painful with the duty of sitting judgment on a State’s conviction for murder, jury’s after a verdict was found flawless highest State’s court, order to determine whether the conviction, were for the decisive confessions, defendant’s standards with the accordance into evidence admitted of Clause by the Due Process demanded admissibility for recurring problem This Amendment. the Fourteenth the justice criminal of touching the administration the in this case form aggravated in an presents States police of the responsibility reconciling of the task anxious criminal' of the right the crime with out ferreting for according to tried to be guilty, defendant, however requirements. constitutional men bodies of two the dead 15, 1956,

On December Britain, in New in Gasoline Station Kurp’s found were was proprietor, the Kurpiewski, Edward J. Connecticut. Daniel in head. a bullet in boiler room with the found men’s toilet in found the customer, was Janowski, a J. pumps at Parked the in the head. shot twice room In it was Janow- car. station was Janowski’s front only the She was unharmed. daughter, physically ski’s station. at the happened had of what eyewitness surviving months old. eighteen She holdups of and in a series one affair was Kurp’s The gasoline of operators terrified the killings holdup the throughout shops and small package stores stations, radio and Newspapers and area. environing Connecticut of depredation fresh each reported broadcasters television Police were Hartford, the State At “mad killers.” the little with apparently crimes, the investigating work at Kur- killings of the At the scene on. go evidence were discovered.1 clues physical no and Janowski piewski two the brains of the from removed slugs bullet and damaged. were split victims Taborsky the his co-defendant petitioner and the trial of 1 At presented any importance was killings Kurp’s, no evidence at indirectly, the con from directly or derive, not did State February during two men obtained from and disclosures fessions March and do February 1957,

In last for reasons which week in connection appear record, suspicion in this holdups holdups investigation, under least two of the country Coventry package store and of a store friends, on Arthur Culombe Rocky Hill, focused two February 23, Taborsky. the afternoon of Joseph On by teams of officers and asked the two were accosted They were never Headquarters. come to State Police In inter- custody. Headquarters’ again out of questioned about rogation elsewhere, they room and were Hill Coventry Rocky holdups, Kurp’s, other con- days ten Culombe had five times matters. Within orally Kurp’s participation fessed Gasoline Sta- re-enacting holdup police— tion for the affair —once signed typed incriminating and had three statements Taborsky Taborsky Kurp’s killings. himself and also confessed. jointly

The two were indicted and tried for murder in degree jury Superior first before a Court at Hartford. Certain of their oral and written statements permitted were go jury to the over their timely objec- tions that by these had been extracted from them police methods which made the confessions inadmissible con- sistently with the Fourteenth Amendment. Both men were of first-degree convicted murder and their convic- by tions Supreme affirmed Court of Errors. Conn. 194, Only 158 A. 2d 239. sought Culombe review by this Court. his petition Because for certiorari presented questions serious concerning the limitations imposed by the Federal Due Process upon Clause investigative activities of state criminal law enforcement we officials, issued the writ. 363 S. 826. U.

I. The occasion which in December 1956 confronted the Connecticut corpses State Police with two and an infant as their community-disturb- sole informants to a crime of advances Despite is not a rare one. modern ing violence offenses technology detection, frequently in the of crime speak. And things occur about which cannot be made to human witnesses where there cannot be found innocent police investigation remains —if offenses, nothing to such fairly begun is not to be balked before it has to seek —but questions, and ask them wit- possibly guilty out witnesses something nesses, is, suspected knowing who are are precisely they suspected about the offense because implication it.

The questions suspected which these witnesses are may serve to clear They may serve, directly asked them. to lead indirectly, suspects or to other than the persons questioned. they may Or become the means persons questioned which the are themselves made to fur- nish proofs eventually prison which will send them to or In any event, outcome, ques- death. whatever its such is often Its tioning indispensable to crime detection. compelling necessity judicially recognized has been as its justification, society sufficient even like which, ours, strongly stands and constitutionally committed to the principle persons accused of crime cannot be made to convict themselves out of their own mouths.

But persons suspected always who are of crime will not be unreluctant questions put by police. answer procedures Since under the Anglo-American criminal justice they cannot be constrained legal process give answers which incriminate them, police have resorted reluctance, to other means to unbend their lest criminal investigation founder.2 Kindness, cajolery, entreaty,

2 significant proposal frequently It is that the most made with the curbing third-degree object police provision of methods is the preliminary judicial interrogation persons of some form of of accused crime, proceeding privilege against in which self-incrim permit prosecution, ination is to be so far withdrawn as to upon subsequent accused, on his trial to comment refusal questions. to answer See IV National Commission on Law Observ- 572

deception, persistent cross-questioning, physical even bru- tality States, been have used to this end.3 In the United “interrogation” has become a police technique,4 and detention for purposes of interrogation a al- common, ance Enforcement, Report 11, and No. in Law Lawlessness Enforce- (hereinafter Wickersham) (1931), 5-6; IV Kauper, ment Judicial Examination of Remedy the Accused—A for the Degree, Third 30 (1932); Mich. L. Pound, Legal Rev. 1224 Interrogation of Persons Suspected Crime, or Criminology Accused J. Crim. L. & (1934); McCormick, Some Developments Problems and in the Admissibility of Confessions, 24 (1946). Tex. L. Rev. Cf. Report of Committee on Lawless Law, Enforcement of Section of Criminology Law Assn., Criminal of the American Bar 1 Am. J. (hereinafter Pol. Sci. ABA Report) 575, Committee (1930). Underlying proposals recognition these is the that some form of inter- rogation suspects necessary of criminal is to effective law enforcement. prevalence For the country police various methods of pressuring ranging persistent questioning from beatings see, g., e. ABA Report, passim; Committee Wickersham, IV passim; Booth, Confessions, Employed Procuring Methods Them, 4 So. Calif. L. (1930); Note, Rev. 83 (1930); Harv. Hopkins, L. Rev. 617 Our passim; Lawless (1931), Report Police of the President’s Com Rights, mittee on Civil Rights (1947), To Secure These 25-27. See also authorities Although cited in note degree is, the third infra. England, spoken of as the practice, England American herself police interrogation not free of cross-questioning. Report of Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure [Cmd. 3297] (1929), 100-102; Preliminary Investigations of Criminal Offences, A Report by (1960), 9-10; Williams, Justice Questioning by the Police: England, Williams, Some Practical Considerations, 51 J. Police Detention and Arrest Crim. L., Criminology ^[1960] & Privileges Pol. Crim. L. Rev. Sci. Under (1960). 325, 328-331; Foreign Law, A Royal engaged Commission is now comprehensive inquiry concerning police will, apparently, study police include methods may insofar as these relate the control and administration of the relationship and their the public. See the Commission’s reference, Royal terms of Commission on the Police Interim Report (1960), iv. [Cmd. 1222] 4 See, g., Kidd, e. Interrogation (1940); Police Mulbar, Interro gation (1951); Dienstein, Investigator Technics (1952), Crime 97-115; Reid, Inbau and Lie Detection Interrogation and Criminal though generally unlawful, practice.5 Crime detection if officials, finding their suspects kept are tight under during control questioning they likely are less to be less distracted, likely to be recalcitrant and, course, less likely to make off and escape entirely, infrequently take such suspects into custody for “investigation.” practice

This has its manifest dangers. evils and Per- sons it subjected to are torn from the reliances of their daily existence and held at the mercy job of those whose persons is—if such have crimes, committed as it is supposed they prosecute have —to They them. are deprived of freedom a proper without judicial tribunal having found guilty, them proper without a judicial tri- having bunal found even that probable there is cause to they believe that may guilty.6 be actually happens What (3d 1953); O’Hara, ed. Investigation Fundamentals of Criminal (1956), Compare 95-126. highly sophisticated with the methods of police interrogation described in these Brampton’s volumes Lord printed, address to Police part, Report Royal Constables Commission, supra, 3, Appendix note 8, “Perhaps at 147: the best maxim for a constable to respect bear in mind with to an accused person ‘Keep your eyes is, your open, your ears mouth ” Regina shut! See also Cooper, v. Male and 17 Cox C. C. 690. 5American Union, Civil Liberties Division, Illinois Secret Deten Chicago (1959); tion Foote, Police see also Law and Police Safeguards Arrest, Practice: in the Law of 52 Nw. U. L. Rev. (1957); Hall, 20-27 Contemporary Law of Arrest in Relation to Problems, Social (1936); Hall, 3 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 359-362 (1953). Police and Society, 133,154 Law in a Democratic 28 Ind. L. J. thorough For a discussion of the evils inherent in the detention suspected persons interrogation, see Memorandum on the Detention of Arrested Persons and Their Production Before a Com mitting Magistrate, Transmitted to Sub-committee No. 2 of the Com Judiciary mittee on the Representatives (1944), of the House of Chafee, Documents Rights, Pamphlets on Fundamental Human 1-3 (1951-1952), Beyond obvious, considerations immediate concerning judicial hearing, incarceration without the threat of the degree, deprivation third possibly of counsel period at a critical proceeding, etc., the criminal equally there lie other less evident but room interrogation of the closed door behind the them to if Certainly, ascertain. to impossible if not is difficult flaring or impatience aggressive or of zeal through excess prisoner silence of obstinate in the face temper up of overcoming, by his of the task faced with he is abused,7 is prisoner The denials.8 official testimony, solemn lone wit- friendly or disinterested that no this —knows knows induce may itself knowledge the present ness is —and police the great is that the risk any case, But, fear.9 police system which the threat that a significant There is menaces. pursue, or interrogation not rely heavily will grown too on has consequent danger that methods, and the learn, other crime detection pressure to secure confessions. under police feel themselves the will (1936), Glueck, 187-189; Crime and Justice Wickersham, at See IV offending by of fair- danger police, canons that the There is the 76. atmosphere by people, will an create regarded as fundamental ness authority enforcement. See inimical to law public resentment lems, 3 Hall, the Police: Some Practical The Law U. of Chi. Rev. of Arrest in Relation L. 345, Considerations, 373 (1936); Williams, Contemporary ^[1960] Crim. Questioning Social L. Rev. Prob- by process danger there is Wickersham, at 174: “But IVSee degree. the interro develop third Once questioning may into the naturally reluctant are gation begun, police or other officials has regard obtained, been information has off until the desired to leave ques sleep; the baffled fatigue and prisoner’s or need less replies, is impudent tioner, getting silence or evasive obstinate by questions threats or easily tempted eke out his unsuccessful violence.” police-station secrecy in which be doubt that There can no encourages usually is a condition which interrogation out is carried Report, See ABA Committee questioning into violence. to run over Rise, McNabb-Mallory Its Hogan Snee, Rule: 587-588; at (1958); Wicker- Rescue, L. cf. IV 47 Geo. J. Rationale between Historically has been intimate connection sham, there at 31. Degree investigations. Filamor, Third and secret the use of torture (1936). Confession, Bombay L. J. prisoner knows Report, at 579: . ABA [T]he See Committee . inquisitor the severe wholly mercy his and that he is at beating.” may any shift to a severe moment cross-examination will accomplish behind their closed precisely door what the demands of our legal order forbid: make suspect unwilling collaborator in establishing guilt. they This may accomplish only not ropes and a rubber hose, only not by relay questioning insistently persistently, subjugating a tired mind, but subtler devices.

In station a prisoner is surrounded known hostile forces. He is disoriented from the world he knows and which he finds support.10 He is subject to coercing impingements, undermining if even pressures obvious of every variety. In such an atmosphere, questioning that is long continued —even only repeated if at inter- vals, never protracted to point the physical of exhaus- inevitably suggests questioner that the has a right tion — and to, expects, an answer.11 This so, is when certainly, prisoner the has never been told that he need not answer and when, because his commitment to custody seems to be at the will of his questioners, he every has

10 Report See Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure (1929), custody at 61: [Cmd. “. . . 3297] . . [P]ersons . are things from the nature of disadvantage at a posi because of their tion. expressed As one us, witness it to ‘the whole the of influences around them appear to them to right be hostile’ and we think that a asking questions of in these circumstances is in a itself source of danger. . . .” 11O’Brien, J., Regina dissenting, Johnston, 15 Irish Common Reports, 60, 87, (Crim. Law App.): appears “. . . to me that [I]t given by prisoner answers questions put to him those in custody is, whose respecting he the charged, offence with he which is regarded cannot voluntary be statements, as except prisoner the be apprised at the same time obliged that he is not them, to answer may given that his against answers be in evidence him at his trial. very questions being fact put by of these person, such a unac companied by any caution, conveys such prisoner’s to the mind the obligation idea part of some them, on his deprives answer voluntary statement of that character which is to its admis essential sibility.” Inquisitorial Cf. Pound, Confessions, Cuthbert W. 1 Cor Q. 77, (1916). nell L. interrogated held and be that he will to believe reason speaks.12 until custody person made a confession

However, The police an overborne will. result of always the remorse, naturally born to a declaration may be midwife if is so, If that calculation. or desperation, or relief, or prisoner been at has not process” the “suction not the choice, does freedom capacity for drained maintaining the police responsibility awful they the means which society justify peaceful order as Patrick forget, Sir It will not do employed? have “The least criti- put it, that Justice)Devlin has Lord (now most deserves to be interrogation methods of cism of such inter- the evidence carefully weighed because high degree of decisive; is often produces rogation beyond requires proof English law proof which — by the not be achieved could doubt —often reasonable the accused’s own the assistance of without prosecution adopt “an undis- if one cannot Yet even statement.” . with- interrogation . . hostility to mere criminating society in protecting the States unduly fettering out When, questions: criminal,” there remain from Regina Pettit, C. 165: J., 4 Cox C. Wilde, C. Cf. anything guarding against like extremely in so cautious “The law is every a man principle to ease where torture, extends a similar inquiry. examina agent meeting If this sort of in an is not a free evidence, say might stop. to where it it is hard tion be admitted in magis questioned by imprisonment, a custody, in other person A in or might him, power to release trate, power him and who has to commit gaol. being to The for fear of sent himself bound to answer think very likely influ to be affected in would be mind such a case persons inadmissible.” of accused which render the statements ences Wickersham, 93. Cf. IV at J.). Frankfurter, Indiana, (opinion of Watts S. U. (1958), England in Devlin, The Prosecution Criminal Tennessee, S. dissenting 322 U. Jackson, J., Ashcraft 156, 160.

applied to what is a judgment imper- of practices, missibility drawn conceptions from the fundamental of Anglo-American process accusatorial “undiscriminat- are ing”? What the characteristics of the “mere inter- rogation” which is consistently allowable with those conceptions?

II. problem The which must recognition be faced fair basic security States’ and of the States’ observance standards, apart their own from the sanctions of the justice Fourteenth Amendment, bringing guilty is that which Mr. Justice in dealing Jackson described with three cases before us:

“In police each case were confronted with one or more brutal murders which the authorities were under highest duty to solve. Each of these murders unwitnessed, only was and the positive knowledge on which a solution could be based possessed by In ground killer. each there was reasonable suspect enough legal an individual but not evidence charge him In guilt. each the attempted to meet the taking suspect situation him .... custody interrogating into “. . . . suggests any one course held [N]o promise of solution these murders other than to suspect custody questioning. take the into alternative was to close the books the crime and on forget it, suspect large. grave with the This a the murders society choice for which two-thirds of already are closed out as insoluble. suspect

“. . . The neither had nor was advised right get presents counsel. This real society. subject dilemma in a one free To without questioning may counsel to and is intended to To freedom. individual peril is a real him, convict of solution peril a real lawyer means in a bring he deems adversary system, because, under our crime, or guilty protect his duty is to that his sole client — no he owes capacity such that innocent —and problem. its crime society solve help duty whatever any law- procedure, criminal conception this Under in no uncertain suspect will tell his salt worth yer any cir- under police no statement to make terms 57, Indiana, S. 338 U. Watts cumstances.” 58-59. concerning problem, components and nature

The overtly and be had better security, liberty as it does as- unanalyzed smothered than examined critically legal relatively agree on judges who sumptions. That to the application in their may disagree considerations validity of not weaken does set of circumstances same Dif- importance. their minimize nor considerations those is a common- same of the facts appraisal in the ferences adjudication. place may quickly be problem critical elements first already said. Its been light of what has

isolated is indis- suspects “Questioning recognition pole is the Supreme As the Court in law enforcement.” pensable requires interest recently: public “the put it Jersey New com- station, at a and that interrogation, fairly, conducted long as forbidden, so be pletely regard to full proper limits reasonably, within 616, 624, N. 2d 254. See People Hall, E. 413 Ill. Degree (3d §851; Filamor, Third 1940), Wigmore ed. on Evidence (1936); Kidd, Police Interro Bombay Confession, L. J. 3-4; O’Hara, Interrogation (1951), 13-15; Mulbar, (1940), gation (1956), 8-10; Investigation Inbau of Criminal Fundamentals (3d 1953), Investigation ed. Criminal Keid, Lie Detection and 195-197.

579 the rights of being questioned.” those if it But is once admitted that questioning of suspects is permissible, whatever reasonable means are needed to make ques- the tioning effective must also be conceded to the police. Smith, State 501, 32 N. 534, 520, J. 161 A. 2d 537. The need permit police interrogation suspects custody per of has been sistently country. asserted in See, g., Rep. e. H. R. 1815, No. Sess, Cong., (“If 85th 2d 5-7 police are, effect, prevented . . . conducting proper from interrogation suspects, and reasonable of law enforcement is challenge.” Id., 5.); faced with a serious at S. Rep. 1478, Cong., No. 85th (“We 2d Sess. 7-11 abhor ... police idea . . . that the right reasonably do not have the inter rogate persons custody prior arraignment. held in This sub committee believe only that the right, they not have but duty have the interrogation conduct persons charged reasonable of Id., 11.); crime.” Rep. at H. 352, Cong., R. No. 86th 1st Sess. 4, (“[T]o preclude police 6-9 questioning devastating would have a on Id., 4.); effect the criminal law.” Admission of Evidence in Cer Cases, Hearings tain before Subcommittee No. 2 of the Committee on Judiciary, House of Representatives, 3690, Cong., on H. R. 78th Sess., 1st 12, 1-10, 27-60; Ser. No. Supreme Decisions, Court Hear ings Special before the Study Subcommittee to Decisions of the Supreme States, Court of the United of the Committee on the Judi ciary, Representatives, House of Cong., Sess., 12, 85th 2d Ser. No. pt. 1, 2-21, 30-101, 157-190; (Mallory Rule), Admission of Evidence Hearings before the Improvements Subcommittee on in the Federal Criminal Code of the Judiciary, Committee on the Senate, H. on R. 11477, 2970, 3325, 3355, S. S. Cong., 64-74, S. 85th 22-45, 2d Sess. 128-149, 160-162; Detention, Hearings Confessions and Police before Rights Subcommittee on Constitutional of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, Cong., 2-8, 119-141; 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Rec. 1390; Cong. 12863; Wickersham, Rec. Supreme Court and Federal Procedure, Q. Criminal (1958); 44 Cornell L. 19-22 Inbau, The Confession Supreme Court, Dilemma in the United States (1948); Ill. L. Rev. 442 Inbau, Law and Police Practice: Restric Interrogation tions in the Law Confessions, 52 Nw. U. L. (1957); Hall, Rev. 80-82 Society, Police and Law a Democratic (1953); 28 Ind. L. J. Wickersham, cf. IV at 173-174. And Williams, Questioning by see the Police: Some Practical Considera tions, ^[1960] Crim. L. Rev. 325, 332-334, 340-341. will be interrogation period prolongation Often if it and, can be checked story a suspect’s so that essential, if lie; true, with the he can be confronted untrue, proves place questioning charge.18 Often released without both because interrogation room, a police have to be will privacy atmosphere proper to assure the important is produc- if is to be made questioning and non-distraction questioned but suspect tive,19 because, where his associates— he —and some cases custody, taken into Legal premises. and flee the warning take may prompt thorough generally prove suspect the will counsel for inform Indeed, even to investigation.20 the obstruction to prove an right keep his to silent will suspect legal the of suspect the or seconds fortifies obstruction. Whatever a potential his mouth closed is capacity keep him in his crime. to the solution of obstacle in the Law Coakley, Practice: Restrictions See Law and Police criticizing (1957), possibly Arrest, 2, as of 62 Nw. U. L. Rev. 8-10 twenty-four-hour prehearing short, cases, maximum too in some the The period provided by 11 Arrest Act. of the Uniform detention § 315, Act, Warner, Arrest 28 Va. L. Rev. Act is found in The Uniform (1942). 343, 347 Mulbar, Interrogation (1951),

19 See 18-19. Detention, Hearings, supra, note See Confessions and Police 117-118; Cong., Sess. See also Rep. H. R. No. 86th 1st 8. Remedy the Kauper, of the Accused—A Judicial Examination (1932), suggesting Degree, 1224, 1247 that Third 30 Mich. L. Rev. interrogation at an presence the of would be obstructive even counsel against privilege deprived of his self-incrimi where the accused was procedure significant criminal It is that critics of French nation. extra-judicial third-degree presence methods and attribute the inquisi judicial interrogation impediment to in France to the represented by the Accused in French Criminal Prosecution tion ^[1955] introduced Crim. of the L. counsel before the by Rev. Accused— law of 275-276, 278; English and French the 1897, giving suspects the Procedure, juge d’instruction. Vouin, 5 Int’l & The Protection of Legal Methods, Comp. Hamson, right L. to be Q. 1, (1956). expres- each of convictions is a cluster pole At the other notion manifestation, of the basic in a different sive, be used law is of the criminal engine the terrible it.21 against helpless who stand individuals overreach be im- men are not to notions are the Among these nor prosecutors, of their will at the unfettered prisoned charged with brutality by officials physical subjected is also, among them, crime. Cardinal investigation not to that men are order, legal basic to our conviction, necessary to condemn information for the exploited be pris- words, in Hawkins’ law, that, them before instrument deluded be made the is not “to oner (8th Pleas of the Hawkins, Crown own conviction.” the con- into principle, This branded 1824), ed. the secret memory of our civilization sciousness which were torture, practiced sometimes inquisitions, of the during the era briefly from the continent borrowed established to those who known Chamber,22 was well Star require- Its essence governments.23 American recognition, put it, “the involve, Sir Patrick Devlin These as considered, liberty subject is every system of law in which dis simply to administrative be left inquiry cannot crime that into regulate, necessary to systems has found it been In most cretion. Devlin, The interrogation.” informally, power of formally the or England (1958), 13-14. Criminal Prosecution 22 see practice English judicial episode in history of this For the Lowell, 184-196; (1924), English History Law Holdsworth, A of 5 (1897). L. Rev. 290 Torture, 11 Harv. Use of The Judicial 23 1891), 447-448: (2d ed. Henry, Elliot’s Debates in 3 Patrick they would distinguished ancestors? —That our . has . What But punishment. tortures, [in barbarous or cruel and admit of not prac- the Congress may Rights] introduce a Bill of absence of the They law. of the common law, preference of the tice civil Germany tor- France, Spain, and may practice the introduce —of they say that They will of the crime. turing, to extort a confession from Great those countries as examples might from well draw as necessity of there is such a you that they tell Britain, will and they a criminal must have government, that strengthening arm 582

ment that the proposes punish State which to convict and an produce individual him against evidence independent officers, simple, labor of its cruel expedient forcing lips. it from his Blackburn own See Alabama, Florida, 361 199, 206-207; U. S. Chambers Quite early English 309 S. 235-238. U. courts acknowledged that, regard, the barrier this set off the system accusatorial inquisitorial.24 from the And soon equity, by torture, and punish extort' confession in order to severity. still more relentless We are then lost and undone.” 24 1769) (3d See Gilbert on Evidence ed. 140: “. . but . then ,and voluntary Compulsion; Confession must be without for our Law, any Law in this differs from the Civil it will not force himself; certainly Man to accuse and in this we do follow the Law Nature, every which commands toMan endeavor his own Preserva tion; may and compel therefore Pain and Force Men to confess Facts, consequently what is not the Truth of such extorted Con depended Walker, fessions are not to be on.” And see Brown v. 691, 696-597; Cooley’s (8th U. S. Constitutional Limitations ed. 1927) 647-648; Story (4th 1873) 2cf. on the Constitution ed. § course, employ inquisitorial Of the continental countries which procedure long ago given modes of up criminal have themselves upon they wring reliance the tortures which once used to incriminat- ing information out of the accused and which were a salient feature inquisitorial system English definitely at the time that rejected century. descriptions in the seventeenth For of the devel- opment inquisitorial and modem method, Keedy, character of the see Preliminary Investigation The France, of Crime in 88 U. of Pa. L. 385, 692, (1940); Garner, France, Rev. Criminal Procedure in (1916); Ploscowe, Yale L. J. 255 Development of Present- Day Europe Criminal America, Procedures in 48 Harv. L. Rev. French (1935); Legal Methods, Hamson, The Prosecution of the ^[1955] Crim. L. Rev. Accused— 272; and see English Vouin, Law, Provisional Release in French Penal of Pa. L. U. Rev. (1960). description procedural safeguards A of the careful which' inquisitorial system Vouin, now maintains is found in The Protec- Procedure, tion of the Comp. Accused French Criminal 5 Int’l & Q. (1956), interesting study L. 1 and an of some of those safe- guards Vouin, operation particular in a case is L’Affaire Drum- mond, ^[1955] Crim. L. Rev. 5.

583 an demand that rigorous it the they came to enforce in evidence offered if it was be confession, extra-judicial free choice.25 his own product the of man, must be against that the concept, historically, fundamental, So 25 Rex v. 1 Rudd. Cowp. 331, 334. See Ibrahim v. Rex, ^[1914] to the true, attributes (P. C.). Wigmore, it is 599, 609-610 A. C. reliability assuring the exclusionary purpose of English the sole rule 1940) (3d ed. 815-867. Wigmore on Evidence §§ of evidence. See of false confessions course, that the fear doubt, of There can be no Rex v. Warick- large adoption the See played part in the of rule. 1896) (6th ed. shall, 298, ; on Crimes 3 Russell 1 Leach 299-300 mingled with this equally soon 478, (e). But it is clear there n. suffi independent and impetus another original first and at exclusive concep the rule: although historically diverse, reason for cient, underlying naught the set confessions that the use of extorted tion compelled to might not be system, men tenet of the accusatorial Evidence, quoted on them. Gilbert speak would See what convict unreliability, where 24, supra. Quite apart from testimonial note extra-judicial applied extract been appeared that had coercion party to to be such incriminating statements, refused courts proceedings. mon Law Regina Chalmers U. S. (J. C.); O’Brien, J., of Law 532, 543. And Evidence, 16 v. Reports 60, 87, Thompson, H. M. Regina Tex. dissenting Advocate, v. see ^[1893] Jarvis, L. Rev. McCormick, The Bram United Compare v. 10 Cox C. ^[1954] 447, 451^457 Q. Regina B. Sess. Cas. C. Scope Johnston, 18-19 574, (1938); Smith, Public of 66, 78-79, 81-82 (Cr. Privilege (Crim. App.); 15 Irish Com Cas. States, Res.) ; in the Process— in the Criminal of the Accused and the Interests Interest 349, 354-355 Lawyer, L. Rev. 32 Tulane of a Scottish Reflections Torture, 11 Harv. L. Rev. Lowell, (1958); Use Judicial underlying conceptions the rule way, (1897). 290, 296 In this against privilege self-incrimina excluding coerced confessions Stephen, A extent, See become, assimilated. have some tion Taylor (1883), 440; 1 on England History Law of of the Criminal 1931) Suspicion to Accusa 556; Fraenkel, (12th From ed. Evidence Royal (1942); Report of the Commis tion, Yale L. J. 24; (1929) IV Powers and Procedures 3297] on Police [Cmd. sion enforcing Due Process Wickersham, at 26-27. Our own decisions “The aim clear that have made Amendment Fourteenth Clause presumptively process is not to exclude requirement due as enforced our Amendment, decisions, Fourteenth procedure the criminal upon it as a limitation applied Consistently that Amendment neither the States. may mind of an accused be twisted until body nor Leyra Brown v. Mississippi, 278; breaks. v. U. S. Denno, 347 S. 556. U.

Recognizing protect suspects the need to criminal from dangers process all of the are to be feared when the police interrogation entirely unleashed, legislatures have enacted several kinds of designed laws curb the investigative activity police. worst excesses of the widespread ubiquitous The most of these are the statutes requiring prompt taking persons arrested before a judicial officer; responsive these are both to the fear evidence, prevent false but to fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence, California, whether true or Lisenba false.” v. 314 U. S. 219, Rogers Richmond, 236. See v. 365 U. S. and author- Smith, ities cited 501, 541-544, therein. And see State N. J. (1960). 161 A. 2d 541-543 States, See McNabb 332, 342-343, v. United 318 U. S. n. 7. prevalent The most provision requiring judicial American is that g., unnecessary delay.” See, “without examination e. Fed. Rules Proc., (a); Crim. Code, §849; Cal. Penal Stat., 1959, Ill. Rev. c. 38, 660; Proc., §165; N. Y. Code Crim. Institute, American Law § Proc., 1931, 6, 35; Code Crim. Alexander, and see 1 The Law of §§ (1949), jurisdictions Arrest specific periods 623-633. Some fix permissible pre-examination detention. Code, See Cal. Penal §825 (without unnecessary delay; two-day maximum); Stat., Mo. Rev. (twenty prisoner 544.170 charged hours unless and held § warrant); N. Stat., 1955, §§594:2, 594:19, H. Rev. 594:20, 594:22, (four-hour 594:23 cases; twenty- detention without arrest in certain night arrest; four hours after examination without unreasonable delay by warrant; if require arrest is prompt other arrests examina tion; twenty-four-hour maximum); Laws, 1956, I. 12-7-1, R. Gen. §§ (two-hour 12-7-13 cases; twenty- detention without arrest in certain arrest). four hours after Judicial decisions as to what constitutes unnecessary delay, or pertinent unreasonable under the statutes or at law, wholly common are not Compare Hart, harmonious. Keefe cause probable detention without of administrative third-degree prac- opportunity risk of to the known judicial examination.27 by delayed is allowed tices which imprison- or sweating, beating outlaw the Other statutes quarter hours (jury find one and 476, 100 E. 558 could 213 Mass. N. (four 265, N. 579 Lynn Weaver, 231 W. unlawful), 251 Mich. with v. (five Hutchison, 358, 290 P. 208 lawful); 49 Idaho Madsen v. hours found), extenuating law; no circumstances unlawful as matter of hours 2d Mandan, 434, N. Haggard Bank 72 N. D. 8 W. Nat. with v. First of Dragna circumstances); v. under (jury hours lawful 5 can find five (dictum than 428, that less White, 469, 473, P. 2d 430 45 2d 289 Cal. . §825), Code, Penal days may under Cal. two be unlawful (sug 113, 117 850, 856, 214 P. 2d Sewell, App. People Cal. 2d v. 95 825; considera under no gestion two-day is lawful detention § holding necessary or circumstances). can be found Cases tion of Kelly, g., People delay. E. v. long periods relatively of reasonable semble; v. 30-31, Commonwealth 288, 27, 2d 281, 89 N. E. Ill. 404 Fuellhart, Mulberry 835; 2d v. Banuchi, 649, 141 N. E. 335 Mass. Hibner, 77, N. Peloquin 231 285 W. 504; Wis. 573, A. v. 203 Pa. Burke, ex rel. Goodchild (alternative holding); States United Mallory law). Cir.) (Wisconsin But see (C. A. 7th 245 F. 2d 88 States, 354 U. S. United requiring arrested legislation States, too, the United Outside period of magistrate fixed brought within some before a persons be country to from although period fixed varies common, time is (2) (twenty-four Canada, 438 country. See, g., Code of e. Criminal § hours; twenty-four if justice within is available hours whenever Act, Magistrates’ Courts possible); as not, as soon thereafter (police must release II, 1 Eliz. c. & 15 & Geo. VI § prac- cannot warrant who recognizance persons arrested without on hours, twenty-four magistrate within ticably brought be before a Act, (Scotland) serious); Procedure Criminal unless the offense may be (examination on declaration Viet., 35, 17 c. 50 & § to secure coun- person arrested forty-eight permit delayed hours Pénale, Arts. de Procédure sel) ; compare new French Code investigation in certain (twenty-four-hour detentions 63, 77, 154 Working foreign regulations, see cases). discussion of such For on the Protection through Nations, 1958 V, Seminar Papers E United Philip- Baguio City, Procedure, Rights in Criminal Law and of Human suspects purpose extorting ment of for the of confessions,28 imprisoned suspects or assure right to communicate legal with friends or counsel.29 But because it is the courts charged, which are the ultimate, both with the pines (1958), Symposium: Comparative Study and the of Con- Release, (1960). ditional 108 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 290-365 sum, say In it seems unanimity proposi- fair to that there is for the tion reasonably that “Strict observance some definite and rather prisoner short time-limit for the detention of a after arrest without judicial personal liberty.” sanction is vital to Statement Rights Committee on the Bill Assn., of the American Bar Submit- ted to Subcommittee No. 2 Judiciary, of the Committee on the House Representatives, Chafee, Documents on Fundamental Human Rights, Pamphlets (1951-1952), 1-3 480. But there is wide diver- gence concerning of views “reasonably how definite is definite” and how short is “rather short.” third-degree prisoners Instances invariably treatment of almost during period occur preliminary between arrest and examination. Wickersham, 169; IV Report Annual of the Committee on Crimi Courts, nal Law and Procedure for 1927-1928 to the Association of Assn, City the Bar of York, of New Book, 1928, Year of the Bar, City of the 235, of 243, 253; Leibowitz, New York Law and Safeguards Police Practice: Interrogation in the Law of and Con fessions, (1957); Hall, Nw. U. L. Rev. The Law of Arrest in Contemporary Relation to Problems, Social 3 U. of Chi. L. Rev. (1936). g., E. Stat., 1959, Ill. (penalizing Rev. c. assault and § battery imprisonment by or persons two or more purpose for the of obtaining confessions); Ky. Stat., 1960, Rev. (penalizing §422.110 attempts by persons having custody prisoners charged of with crime incriminating obtain by plying information questions, by with wrongful threats or other means; confession so obtained made evidence). inadmissible in 29 g.,E. Code, (attorneys permitted Cal. Penal to see arrested § persons; neglecting refusing officers permit or such visits are guilty civilly of a misdemeanor and statutory forfeiture) ; liable for Stat., 1955, N. H. §§594:15, 594:16, Rev. (relatives, 594:17 friends attorney and to be permitted notified of arrest person to see arrested; provisions violation criminal); of these made Tex. Penal Code, (makes Art. 1176 it persons having unlawful for prisoners in safeguarding criminal law and with enforcement consistent rights procedures the criminal defendant’s reconciling of fairness, problem with fundamental need society’s with police interrogation for society’s need interro- police abuses of protection possible from the upon courts, particularly devolves gation decisively regulate in the rules of evidence which connection with our admissibility extrajudicial of confessions. Under system task, respect crimes, is, this to local federal of the state courts. primarily responsibility course, their free- however, limits Amendment, The Fourteenth powers in It their regard. subjects dom this broad places upon limited, searching, but federal review all the deference and caution obligation Court the —with adjudi- demands —to competence which exercise of such requires by way law of restrict- process cate what due ing products the state courts their use of the interrogation.

That is what is at issue this case. judgment III. suspects posed police interrogation dilemma

in custody judicial interrogated and the use of confessions simply by to convict their cannot be resolved makers wholly opposing set of considerations subordinating one interro- argument to the other. The that without such the hiatus between gation impossible is often to close suspicion proof, especially involving pro- cases respon- criminals, pressed quarters fessional is often unfeeling. argument sible and not It is the same custody prevent prisoners’ with to consultation or communication counsel). employing approaches For to statutes to citation various third-degree practices protection prisoners’ elimination of and the of interests, McCormick, Developments in the see Some Problems and Admissibility (1946). Confessions, 239, of L. Rev. Tex. 251-254 rack.30 the lash and the support to was once invoked in form, its extreme put to this Court it has been Where under all-night grilling prisoners the of justifying as week-long terror, we have sustained, of circumstances Florida, 240-241. 227, S. it. U. rejected Chambers irrespec- means such lawless proscribes “The Constitution of end.” tive the rack, and is not the lash or the asking questions

But ex necessitate is not the short say argument the to is in which it is invoked every answer to situation does not demand altogether. process to dismiss it Due in criminal their administration of the States, civili the accused which our law, standards of favor to never found expression, in its most sensitive has zation, Indian practical adopt. principle it to Act excludes all made to Evidence confessions they by the- by persons or while are detained in or police31 accepted England32 has never been systema inquisitorial system practiced Under as was (the system embodied, example, tized torture in the French Ordi 1670), applied suspects nance of the rack was to in whose cases the preliminary developed guilt to examination had indications of sufficient justify satisfy proof its use but burden of insufficient severe necessary Torture, Lowell, The to conviction. See Judicial Use (1897). L. Harv. Rev. 224-228 Act, The Indian Evidence 1872. Section 25 excludes confessions by any per police officer; made to a 26 excludes confessions made § custody police officer, except son while in the of a in the immediate any presence magistrate. 'provides However, of a that “when § consequence deposed fact as discovered information received person any offence, custody police- from a accused of in the of a officer, information, so such whether it amounts to a con much of may not, distinctly thereby discovered, or fession as relates fact proved.” reported Compare bill, passed be one house have Legislature Booth, Confessions, California set out in Employed Procuring Them, and Methods 4 So. Calif. L. Rev. 84r-85, (1930). provision n. 3a And see the submitted without rec-

589 principle of the Scottish Nor has the this country.33 incrim in of a defendant’s the use evidence barring cases any time questioning responses police inating Rather, has focused on suspicion after him.34 from the federal coming cases here lower (in Court and of the courts of Canada,37 England36 courts),35 by at the ommendation the Commission on Penal Procedure Sixth Congress Lawyers, Association of Democratic in of International Trial, Prior 17 Law. Coe, Practices of Police and Prosecution Guild Rev. 32 E. g., Ibrahim, 64 (1957). v. Rex, ^[1914] A. C. 599 (P. C.); Regina v. May, App. Rep. 36 Cr. 91. 33 States, 574; Sparf Hopt Utah, and Hansen v. United v. 110 U. S. States, And see Wilson Pierce United 51; 156 160 U. S. 355. U. S. v. Bilokumsky Tod, States, 623; v. United v. 263 U. S. 162 U. S. 149, 157. 34 Chalmers H. M. v. Advocate, ^[1954] Sess. Cas. 66 (J. C.). As Justice-General, expressed opinion in of the Lord stage investigation theory of initial "... The of our law that at acquiring may question anyone with a view to information criminal; that, may but when the lead to the detection of suspicion, stage suspicion, or more than has been reached at which upon person likely perpetrator has their some as the view centred very crime, interrogation person becomes further of that g., extracting e. far, point dangerous, and, too to the if carried by cross-examination, the evidence confession what amounts Id., certainly be excluded.” at 78. that confession will almost 35 Carignan, States 36; States v. cf. United United 342 U. S. v. States, Mitchell, Bram v. United S. 322 S. 65. And see 168 U. U. Ziang Sung States, Wan United McNabb 1, 14; 532, 558; 266 U. S. v. United v. v. Rex 552, 554. ^[1952] Rex Voisin, v. States, Q. Irish Thornton, B. ^[1918] 318 U. courts reach the same result. (Crim. App.); 1 K. B. 531 S. Mood. 27; (Crim. App.); and see Rex v. Lambe’s Gilham, Regina Rex v. Case, 1 Mood. v. Straffen, 2 Leach Gibney, 186; Regina Johnston, Rep. 14; 15 Irish Common Law Jebb’s Res. Cas. (Crim. App.). English of the last decisions at end Several per by se rule excluding century appeared lay confessions down a Regina Gavin, persons questioned custody, C. see Cox C. the courts all agreed holding per the States38 have receipt missible the of confessions secured the ques custody tioning suspects crime-detection officials. And, long in a series of has that the cases, Court held Regina Cooper, Male and 656; 689, v. 17 Cox C. C. but these cases App.). Perhaps have since been laid to rest. v. Rex the best statement of the current Best, ^[1909] 1 K. B. 692 English law, (Crim. sub- ject qualification respect Judges' Rules, to some to with see text at notes (Crim. App.): infra, 39-47, v. Rex is that in Voisin, ^[1918] 1 K. B. 531, 539 ques- "... he mere fact that a statment is made in answer a [T] put by suipcient tion a constable is not in itself make the may be, ground statement is, inadmissible in law. It and often judge excluding evidence; in his discretion but he should only voluntary do so , if he thinks the statement was not a one . . . unguarded or was an answer made under circumstances that rendered unreliable, or unfair for some reason to be allowed in evidence Bellos, 209 610-614 against 37 (Q. v. Boudreau ^[1927] B.); (P. C.). prisoner.” Regina 3 D. Rex, R.L. v. Elliott, ^[1949] Ibrahim See v. 186 31 Ont. 14 (S. 3 D. L. R. 81 C. Can.); (D. Rex, Regina C.). (S. ^[1914] C. In v. Can.); Canada, Day, A. C. 20 v. Rex as in Ont. 599, England, however, judges trial exercise a broad discretion to exclude by prisoners response police questioning where, confessions under all the circumstances, admission of the confessions is deemed unfair. See Rex v. pare Rex v. Anderson, Kooten, ^{[1942] [1926]} 3 D. L. R. 179 4 D. L. R. 771 (C. A., (K. B., Man.), B. C.). Com 48, Canadian cases cited in notes 47 and And in both infra. heavy placed affirmatively countries the burden on the Crown any demonstrate the voluntariness of offered statement as a condi tion of its admissibility, Regina v. Thompson, ^[1893] 2 B. 12 Q. (Cr. Res.), operates interrogated Cas. See, often to exclude confessions. g., Chadwick, e. Rex App. Rep. (Recorder v. 24 Crim. 138 erred in determining depositions; issue of voluntariness on burden is on Crown Dick, affirmatively Rex v. voluntary); to show that confession is D. ^[1947] L. R. 517 2 D. L. R. 213 (C. A., Ont.). (C. The Canadian law is discussed in Kauf A., Ont.); Rex v. Rowlett, ^[1950] 2 man, Admissibility (1960). of Confessions in Criminal Matters 38 Ingram State, 497, (1949); Alabama: v. 252 Ala. 42 So. 2d 36 Myhand State, 415, (1953). Arizona: State v. 259 Ala. 66 So. 2d 544 Miller, (1945); Hightower State, 529, v. 62 Ariz. 158 P. 2d 669 v. 62

591 from State prohibit does not Amendment Fourteenth as, under suspect of a examination such detention coercive. See not to be is found circumstances, all the Oklahoma, Lyons v. 219; California, v. 314 U. S. Lisenba Jordan, Ariz. semble; (1945), State v. 351, 158 P. 2d 156 Ariz. Browning, 206 State v. 248, (1958), semble. Arkansas: 320 P. 2d 446 335, State, Ark. (1944); Moore v. 791, S. 2d 77 Ark. 178 W. State, 101, 240 Dorsey Ark. (1958); and see v. 2d 907 S. W. 763, Bashor, People 48 Cal. 2d (1951). v. California: 2d 30 S. W. 3, Court, Rogers Superior 46 Cal. 2d (1957); see v. P. 2d 255 People, 111 Colo. (1955). Cahill v. 291 P. 2d 929 Colorado: Downey People, 307, 215 P. 2d 892 (1943); 121 Colo. v. P. 2d 673 (1958). 2d 674 Con People, 322 P. (1950); Leick 136 Colo. (1945); 2d Zukauskas, 450, 45 A. 132 Conn. necticut: State v. (1949); see State Buteau, 68 A. 2d 681 136 Conn. State v. (1950). Delaware: Guastamachio, 179, 75 A. 2d 429 137 Conn. (1958). Florida: Gra 2d 68 State, 301, 145 A. v. 51 Garner Del. State, Singer 109 So. (Fla. 1956); v. State, 2d v. 91 So. 662 ham 394, 14 2d Finley State, So. (Fla. 1959); 153 Fla. 7, and see v. 2d 26 1949). Georgia: (Fla. State, (1943); 41 So. 2d 885 Rollins v. 844 641, 30 (1941), 197 Ga. Bryant State, 686, 13 E. 2d 820 191 Ga. S. v. 275, E. 2d 528 State, 26 S. (1944); Russell 196 Ga. E. 2d 259 v. S. 44 117, S. E. 2d Ferguson State, 215 109 (1943); Ga. and see v. Territory Hawaii: grounds, S. 570. (1959), 365 U. rev’d on other Aquino, Territory (1945); v. Nozawa, Young Haw. 189 and 37 v. 464, 146 Behler, 65 Idaho (1959). State Idaho: v. 43 Haw. 347 Johnson, 74 Idaho semble; (1944), and see State v. P. 2d 338 People Lazenby, Ill. 403 (1953). v. 269, Illinois: 261 P. 2d 638 Hall, 615, 110 N. E. (1949); People 413 Ill. v. 95, N. E. 2d 660 85 11, N. E. 2d People, 2d 139 (1953); 10 Ill. Davies v. 2d 249 (1957); Goard, 495, 144 N. E. 2d 603 (1956); People 11 Ill. 2d v. 216 613, 616 566, 571, E. 2d People, 150 N. Napue 13 Ill. 2d v. People 264; v. grounds, 360 U. S. (1958) (dictum), on other rev’d People (1958); v. and see 84, N. E. 2d 455 Miller, Ill. 2d 148 13 (1952). Krauss v. Indiana: Lettrich, 172, E. 2d 488 413 Ill. 108 N. State, (1951); Pearman v. State, 625, N. E. 2d 824 229 Ind. 100 State, 235 (1954); see Davis v. Ill, 362 117 N. E. 2d 233 Ind. Williams, 245 (1956). v. Iowa: State 620, E. 2d 30 137 N. Ind. 25, Harriott, Iowa (1954); 248 State v. 494, 2d 742 Iowa 62 N. W. 339, Triplett, 79 N. W. 248 Iowa (1956); State v. 2d 332 79 N. W. 716, P. 2d 81 Vargas, 308 (1956). v. 180 Kan. Kansas: State 2d 391 592

322 S. 596; Gallegos Nebraska, U. v. 342 55; U. S. Brown Allen, v. 344 443; York, U. S. Stein v. New 346 156, U. S. 184; Crooker v. California, 357 433; U. S. Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 S.U. 504. And see Townsend Burke, v. 334 U. S. 736, 738. (1967); Smith, and see State v. 645, 158 (1944). Kan. P. 149 2d 600 Kentucky: May hew, Commonwealth Ky. v. 172, 297 178 S. W. 2d (1943); 928 Curtis Commonwealth, v. Ky. 205, 312 226 S. W. 2d (1949); 753 Reed Commonwealth, Ky. v. 214, 312 226 S. W. 2d 513 (1949); Milam Commonwealth, v. (Ky. 275 S. 1955); W. 921 Karl v. Commonwealth, (Ky. 1956). 288 S. W. 2d 628 Louisiana: State v. Holmes, 730, 205 La. 18 (1944); So. 2d 40 Joseph, State v. 217 La. 175, 46 So. (1950); 2d 118 State Solomon, v. 269, 222 La. 62 So. 2d (1952); 481 Weston, State v. 766, 232 La. 95 (1957); So. 2d 305 Green, see State v. 713, 221 La. (1952). 60 So. 2d 208 Maine: State Priest, v. 117 223, Me. (1918). 103 A. Maryland: State, 359 Cox v. 525, 192 Md. 64 (1949); A. 2d 732 State, James 31, v. 193 65 Md. A. 2d (1949); 888 State, Merchant v. 61, 217 Md. 141 A. 2d 487 (1958). Massachusetts: Mabey, Commonwealth 96, v. 299 Mass. 12 N. E. (1937); 2d 61 Banuchi, Commonwealth v. 649, 335 Mass. 141 (1957). E.N. 2d 835 People Michigan: Panne, Lav. 255 Mich. 38, 237 N. (1931), semble; W. 38 People Hamilton, see v. 359 410, Mich. 416-417, (1960). 102 N. W. 2d 738 Minnesota: State v. Schabert, 222 261, (1946). Minn. 24 N. 2dW. Mississippi: Win- State, ston v. 799, Miss. 2d (1950), semble; So. Crouse State, 15, 229 Miss. 89 So. (1956), 2d 919 semble. Missouri: State Ellis, 998, 354 Mo. 193 S. W. (1946); 2d 31 Francies, State v. (Mo. S. W. 2d 8 1956); Smith, State v. (Mo. 310 S. 1958); 2d 845 W. and see Lee, State v. 361 Mo. 233 S. (1950). W. 2d 666 Mon- tana: Dixson, State v. Mont. 260 P. (1927); State v. Robuck, 126 Mont. (1952). 248 P. 2d 817 Nebraska: Kitts v. State, 151 679, Neb. 39 N. (1949); Gallegos W. 2d 283 State, v. 152 831, Neb. 43 N. W. 1 (1950), aff’d, 2d 342 55; State, U. S. Parker v. 164 614, Neb. 83 N. (1957). W. 2d 347 Boudreau, State Nevada: v. 67 36, Nev. 214 (1950); parte P. 2d 135 Ex Sejton, 2, 73 Nev. 306 P. (1957). 2d 771 Hampshire: New Howard, State v. 17 N. H. 171 (1845); and see George, State v. 408, (1945). 93 N. H. 43 A. 2d 256 Jersey: New Pierce, State 252, v. 4 N. J. 72 (1950); A. 2d 305 State Cooper,

v. 532, 10 N. J. (1952); 92 A. 2d 786 Grillo, State v. 11 N. J. 173, (1952); A. 2d 93 328 Wise, State v. 59, 19 N. J. 115 A. 2d 62 (1955); Smith, State v. 32 N. 501, J. (1960). 161 A. 2d 520 New

593 English long It is true that courts have tended severely law discourage enforcement officers from ask- ing questions persons under arrest or who are so far suspected judges their arrest is imminent. The have Lindemuth, (1952); 257, Mexico: State v. 56 N. M. 243 P. 2d 325 Griego, Padilla, 42, (1956); State 61 N. M. P. v. 294 2d 282 State v. 289, (1959). People Perez, 66 N. M. 347 P. 2d 312 New York: 300 v. People 208, (1949); Spano, 256, N. 4 Y. 90 N. E. 2d 40 v. N. Y. 2d 315; People Vargas, (1958), rev’d, 150 E. 2d 226 360 7 N. TJ. S. v. 555, (1960); People Alex, N. Y. 2d 166 N. E. 2d 831 and see 265 v. (1934); People Elmore, 397, 192, Y. 192 E. 277 Y. 14 N. N. 289 v. N. People Lovello, (1938); 436, 1 N. É. 2d 451 v. N. Y. 2d 136 N. E. 2d (1956). People Biasi, 544, But see Di 7 N. Y. 2d 166 N. 2d 483 v. E. Brown, (1960) (post-indictment). 825 North Carolina: State v. 233 202, (1951); Rogers, 390, N. C. 63 S. E. 2d 99 State v. 233 N. C. 64 Davis, (1951); 86, E. 2d S. E. 2d 572 State v. 253 N. C. 116 S. (1960). Nagel, 495, 365 Dakota: State v. 75 N. D. 28 N. W. North Braathen, (1947); 309, N. D. 43 2d 202 2d 665 State v. 77 N. W. (1950). (Ohio 1944), Collett, App. E. Ohio: State v. 58 N. 2d 417 (1945); app. dism’d, 639, 144 60 E. 2d State v. Ohio St. N. 170 Lowder, (1946), app. dism’d, App. 237, 72 E. 2d 785 147 79 Ohio N. State, Fry 530, (1947). Ohio St. 72 N. E. 2d 102 Oklahoma: v. (1944); State, 299, Hendrickson 93 78 Okla. Cr. 147 P. 2d 803 v. (1951); State, 379, Thacker v. 309 P. 2d 306 Okla. Cr. 229 P. 2d 196 Fowler, (Okla. 1957); Application 770, Cr., and see 356 P. 2d 778 (Okla. 1960). Folkes, 568, Cr., Oregon: State 174 150 P. 2d v. Ore. (1958); (1944); Nunn, 546, P. 17 State 212 Ore. 321 2d 356 v. aff’d, Leland, (1951), 598, 227 P. 2d 785 343 see State v. 190 Ore. Agoston, (1952). Pennsylvania: 364 Commonwealth v. U. S. 790 Bibalo, 464, (1950); 375 Pa. Pa. 72 A. 2d 575 v. Commonwealth Sleighter (1953); ex rel. v. Ban 257, A. 45 Commonwealth 100 2d (1958). miller, 133, Rhode Island: State v. 392 Pa. 139 A. 2d 918 (1957). Andrews, 341, 425 South Carolina: State R. I. 134 A. 2d 86 Bullock, (1948); Brown, 237, E. 2d 521 State v. v. 212 S. C. 47 S. Chasteen, (1959); 228 356, and see State v. 235 S. C. 111 S. E. 2d 657 Landers, 88, (1955). Dakota: State v. S. E. 2d South S. C. 880 511, Nicholas, (1908); 62 S. D. 606, State v. 21 S. D. 114 N. 717W. Wynn State, Tenn. (1934), N. semble. Tennessee: 253 W. 443, State, (1944); 184 Tenn. Ford v. 181 S. W. 2d 2d Taylor State, 235 S. W. (1945); 191 Tenn. 2d 539 S. W. State, 2d Tenn. 189 S. W. (1950); McGhee v. and see 594 receiving while practice even

many deprecated times The man- produced.39 it has the confessions evidence aug- in 1912, first issued Judges’ Rules, as the known ual a Office Circular and clarified Home 1918, mented State, (1954). Acklen v. (1945); 314, 267 2d 101 196 Tenn. S. W. 826 Dimery State, (1951); 197, 240 S. W. 2d 293 Texas: v. 156 Tex. Cr. R. (1952); State, Leviness 160, 247 S. 2d 115 157 Tex. Cr. R. W. v. (1952); State, Golemon v. 534, 247 S. 2d 119 157 Tex. Cr. R. W. (1954) ; State, LeFors 544, R. 2d 837 161 Tex. Cr. 278 S. W. v. State, (1955); 408, 144 Walker v. 162 Tex. Cr. R. 286 S. W. 2d (1958). State, 166 Tex. Cr. R. 95, 312 2d 247 Chüdress v. S. W. Hill, (1950); see Utah: Mares v. 484, 222 P. 2d 811 118 Utah Gardner, State v. (1951); State v. 579, 559 119 Utah 230 P. 2d Braasch, State (1951). 450, 119 229 P. 2d 289 Vermont: v. Utah Goyet, Blair, State (1953); 12, 81, 120 Vt. 118 Vt. 99 A. 2d 677 v. Commonwealth, James v. (1957). Virginia: 192 132 A. 2d 623 Va. Campbell Commonwealth, 713, (1951); 66 513 194 Va. S. E. 2d v. Commonwealth, (1953); Mendoza 825, 199 Va. 75 S. E. 2d 468 v. Winters, State (1958). Washington: 961, 1 39 Wash. 103 S. E. 2d v. Johnson, 666, State v. 545, (1951); 53 2d 2d 236 P. 2d 1038 Wash. Digman, State v. (1959). Virginia: 121 335 P. 2d 809 W. Va. West Bruner, 755, State 499, (1939); 105 5 S. E. 2d 113 143 W. Va. v. Brady, and see State v. (1958); 523, 140 S. E. 2d 140 104 W. Va. Fransisco, (1927). 247, State v. 43 S. E. 546 Wis. Wisconsin: State, (1950); 47, 44 N. 2d 537 N. W. 2d 38 v. 258 Wis. W. Kiefer Babich, (1951); State v. State (1950); 290, 45 N. 2d 660 258 Wis. W. Stortecky, State v. Bron 362, (1956); v. 273 Wis. 77 N. W. 2d ston, (1959). 504, 2d 97 N. 2d 98 N. W. 2d 468 Wis. W. State, Wyo. 452,161 Mortimore State Wyoming: (1916); P. 766 v. Lantzer, Wyo. (1940). 2d 99 P. 39 Regina Berriman, (“I very 6 Cox C. C. 388-389 much disapprove proceeding. By country, per of this the law of this no ought himself, police son to he made to and no officer criminate [sic] any right, having proof has there is of a been com until clear crime searching mitted, put questions person purpose to a for eliciting perpetrated not. from him whether an offence has been or offence, justified, a If there is evidence of an officer is after interrogatories proper caution, putting suspected person to a ascertaining there fair and reasonable view whether nor not are very grounds apprehending him. should be Even course amongst sparingly go those resorted to. . . . I wish it forth in published 1930, English embodies the attitude of the in regard.40 encouraging police Bench While officers put questions possibly persons, to to all informed whether or not suspected, during early phase the of their investi- justice, who are inferior officers in the administration of that such Regina practice entirely opposed spirit law.”); a to the of our v. Mich, (“I entirely system 822, disapprove 3 F. & F. the 823 police examining prisoners. prisoners officers The law has surrounded great precautions prevent being with confessions extorted from them, magistrates question prisoners, and the are not allowed to or they say; policemen to ask them what have to and it is not for to do things. assuming magistrate these It is the functions of the without precautions magistrates required by those which the the law to are assuming magistrates use, and functions which are entrusted to the Regina only.”); Reason, (“It and to them Cox C. C. duty police-constable prisoner is the of the to hear what the has volun tarily say, prisoner custody but the after is taken into is not the duty Regina police-constable questions.”); of the to ask v. Chever ton, Regina S.) 833, 835; Regan, Rep. (N. 2 F. & F. 17 Law Times 325, 326. rules, up by King’s judges The first four of the drawn the of the request Secretary, Bench at the of the Home were circulated in 1912. Their text is set forth in Rex v. Voisin, ^[1918] 1 K. B. 531, 539, (3). approved by judges n. A memorandum the in 1918 increased 1918). (Sept. 28, their number to nine. See 145 Law Times 389 Ambiguities pointed by Royal in the rules were out a Commission Royal Report in see Powers Commission on Police (1929) response 69-74, and Procedure and in to the [Cmd. 3297] clarifying Commission’s observations a was issued circular approval judges. Home Office in 1930 with the of the See 6 Police 1931) (12th (1933) 352-356; Taylor Journal on ed. Evidence were 557-559. Further Home Circulars in 1947 and 1948 Office approved by Lord Chief Justice. For the text of the Rules presently operation, as Justices’ Manual Circulars see Stone’s 1960) (92d Devlin, also The Criminal Prosecution ed. 353-356. See recently England Secretary (1958), 38-42, The Home 137-141. responded he been in with the Lord to Parliament that had touch agreed when it would Justice, who that the time had come Chief had scope appropriate judges carry be for the out a review of Hansard, operation Judges’ Rules, Deb., No. 75 636 H. C. 1961). (March 16, [written answers] who committed discovering aims at gation as the officers that so soon admonish offense, Rules with person a charge particular minds to up make their say that he need him, first, they a should caution crime, says may be used and, second, that what nothing him fur- him or questioning evidence, questioning before except questioned, not to be custody ther. Persons are cautioned, volunteers having been prisoner, that when fairly as are questions may be asked statement, such questioner as the ambiguities, long so needed to remove beyond scope not seek elicit information does persons has offered. If two or more prisoner what the taken an and the have charged are offense may be furnished them, copies the statement of one of said or done to invite nothing to the others but should be in the sense reply.41 Judges’ a The are not “law” Rules Rules, pertinent part, in are: “(1) endeavouring police to discover the author When a officer crime, objection putting questions respect in of a there is no to his any not, person persons, suspected thereof or from to or whether whom he thinks be that useful information can obtained. charge

“(2) up a a officer has made his mind to Whenever asking person crime, person before with a he should first caution such any questions may any questions, as the case be. or further

“(3) custody questioned the Persons in should not be without being usual caution first administered.

“(4) prisoner any statement, If the wishes to the usual volunteer caution should be administered ....

“(7) prisoner making voluntary A a statement must not be cross- examined, questions put except him and no should be to about it for actually purpose removing ambiguity the of in what he has said. For instance, saying if he has mentioned an hour without whether it was morning given evening, day day or the or has a of the week and of agree, month which do not or made it to has not clear what individual place statement, or part what he refer he intended to in some may questioned sufficiently up point. be to clear the

“(8) persons charged When two or more are with the same offence separately persons charged, the the statements are taken from ipso eo officer questioning aby of them violation any incriminatory whatever in evidence inadmissible renders judges the it is clear But may obtain.42 he responses to discretion have broad trials criminal presiding offend which methods procured confession any exclude viola- Rules,43 and spirit the or letter against although influence, seemed instances in a few tions have of Criminal the Court judgment control, not to reasons, For these convictions.44 quashing in Appeal charged, persons other to the statements these not read police should a police with be furnished should persons such each but by the or done be nothing said should copy statements of such a to make charged desires person reply. If a police to invite be administered.” should usual caution reply, the in statement Circular Home Office connection be read These must states: which ques- or encourage authorize intended never was “Rule 3 been has custody he after person of a tioning or cross-examination custody, and he is for the crime subject of on the cautioned, prac- been the since, it has formulated, and long this Rule before improp- question so to a any answer Judge not allow for the tice may proper be cases evidence; in some but given in erly put to be custody the cau- after person questions to a necessary put person arrested instance, For administered. has tion been hidden say, T have charged, formally he is may, before burglary properly would after caution away,’ and property thrown or person, it?’; or a or thrown you hidden have asked, ‘Where be asked criminal, properly is habitual charged as a formally he is before out came he last done since he has what give account to an understood, and, so such cases apply to is intended 3 prison. Rule prohibits qualify Rule does not in conflict with is necessary as is except such voluntary statement upon a any question fen, 92 J. ^[1918] 42 43 clear Regina v. Ibid.; Rex v. ^[1952] P. 1 K. B. up 743, 758 ambiguity.” 2 B. Q. Wattam, (1928); May, 36 911, 914 539-540; see 36 Crim. Brownlie, Police Crim.. (Crim. App. “Questioning an App. App.). Rep. 72, Rep. Questioning, 77; 93; Accused Regina Rex Custody and v. v. Person,” Voisin, Straf Caution, See Rex ^[1960] v. Dwyer, Crim. L. Rev. 298. Crim. App. Rep. 156; Regina v. Bass, Rep. App. Crim. and because of the respect which attaches to the Rules in view of their source, they have per- doubtless had a vasive effect upon actual they practices, appear to be regarded by the constabulary aas more or less infrangible code.45 Inasmuch as the same conception is shared by counsel for the Crown, the contemporary English reports do not disclose cases involving the sort of claims of coercion so frequently litigated in our courts. It may well be their circumstances seldom arise;46 when they do, the Crown does not offer the confession; if it were offered—in case, for example, where several hours of questioning could be shown —the trial judge would almost certainly it.47 exclude

This principle by which the English trial judges have supplemented the traditional Anglo-American rule that Rex Kay, prevented him.’ whether the e. ago, at a trial at the Central which the Regard noon’s questioning of Miss Savidge, 1303-1339, dence) Act, 1921 is Police stabulary. Questioning,” Review, 5 J. Soe. Public what is common American police practice reported breaches themselves seem relatively Rex Knight, 47See the 1905 decision, The g., 46No doubt 45 Devlin, that which support See Forsyth, furor, Tribunal to the beginning English See the several 1921-1931 prisoner 11 B. C. 157. both within and without Parliament, prevails Interrogation ” conclusion The Criminal appointed [Cmd. to do History Judges’ practice has statement. had not made a ^[1960] (5th Teachers of practical 3147] so; that, articles under By the Police of Criminal Rules are Crim. L. ser. Prosecution in Lawyers but I (1928); operation among sometimes 1928). composing Law knew Court, illuminating. large, Rev. (1875), 282, Tribunals of sometimes —so (N. S.) So is the comment my T. L. England 298-356; H. C. the tenor of the Rules given Miss mild — policeman duty He raised Rep. 310; even these “Special broken, Deb. Savidge, n. 1: “Not answered, See compared with occasion. (1958), (1960). Inquiry (Evi- better, Elliott, Book English Inquiry 1216-1220, was asked an after- Issue on but and see Report passim. appear ‘No: long con See, In I

599 the exercise voluntary, by if are admissible confessions pro- incriminating statements to exclude a discretion although not deemed oppressive methods deemed by cured criminal with accusatorial inconsistent fundamentally States.49 imitated in United has not been procedure,48 States, U. S. 318 v. United in McNabb Court, In 1943 admin- authority over the supervisory its upon drew 332, exclu- inaugurate an justice to criminal of federal istration than stringent less considerably sionary practice any the exclusion requires practice That English. failure due to detention during illegal “made confession committing magis- a before prisoner carry promptly the result the ‘confession or not trate, whether Upshaw ....’” psychological or physical torture, is to purpose Its States, 413.50 United 335 U. S. be arrested persons requirement give effect judicial delay before unnecessary brought without civilized like other society, our safeguard which officer—a with Ibrahim v. 48 Compare Rex v. Rex, Godwin, ^{[1914] [1924]} A. C. D. L. It. 362 (P. C.). And see (K. B., N. Rex v. B.), Rep. Pattison, App. 139. 21 Cr. adopted, has been requirement of a Judges’ caution The Rules’ incriminating admissibility of however, made a condition Justice, S. C. Military U. Code of statements, by the Uniform prevails exceptions, requirement, certain with The same §831. Compare Proc., 726, 727. Crim. Arts. Tex. Code statute Texas. Cong., 2d 85th Sess. S. arresting failure of the McNabb, turned on the our In decision statutes prescribed federal comply procedures officers persons arrested production of requiring prompt then in effect States, 318 Compare Anderson v. United preliminary examination. States, Mallory Upshaw v. United case U. S. implementation exclusionary over in rule the same U. S. carried in United (a). course, our decision Proc., Of Crim. of Fed. Rules made that confessions Mitchell, 65, makes clear 322 U. States v. S. delay following immediately arrest and before period during the the rule. be excluded under not to are becomes unlawful 600

societies, has found protection essential to the personal liberty.51

The McNabb was an case innovation which derived from our concern and responsibility for fair modes of criminal proceeding in the federal courts.52 The States, in the large, have adopted not a similar exclusionary prin- ciple.53 And although we adhere unreservedly to McNabb S.,

51 318 U. 343-344: "... The awful instruments of the criminal law cannot be single entrusted to functionary. complicated process of crim- justice inal is therefore divided into parts, responsibility different separately which is in participants vested upon various whom the criminal law relies Legislation for its requir- vindication. . . . ing that the must with promptness legal reasonable show cause for detaining persons, arrested important safeguard— constitutes an only assuring protection for the innocent but securing also guilty by conviction of the methods that commend themselves to a progressive and society. self-confident procedural require- For this ment resort reprehensible checks practices those known as the degree’ ‘third which, though universally rejected as indefensible, still way find their into use. It aims to implications avoid all the evil interrogation of secret persons accused of crime. It reflects not sturdy sentimental but a view of law enforcement. It outlaws easy self-defeating but ways in brutality is substituted for brains as an instrument of crime 26, 27, supra. detection.” See notes 52 McNabb, Prior to the rule prevailing in the federal courts made voluntariness the admissibility. test of Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U.S. 1. See Bram States, also v. United 168 U. S. 532. 53See supra. cases cited in 38, note Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, {semble), Louisiana Maryland, Massachusetts {sem- ble), Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Jersey, York, New New North Carolina {semblé), Dakota, North Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn sylvania (no prompt-arraignment statute), Rhode {semble), Island (no Tennessee prompt-arraignment statute), Texas, Utah, Vermont {semblé), Virginia, Washington {semble) and Wisconsin ex have pressly rejected McNabb. Colorado appears clearly reject it. appears reject also it, Minnesota Schabert, decision in State v. 222 261, Minn. 846, 24 N. W. 2d qualifying suggestion might whatever have been opinion inferred from the appeal the earlier of the same its rule not extended we have cases, criminal for federal the Fourteenth requirement as a prosecutions to state Nebraska, 63-64 55, S.U. Gallegos Amendment. Allen, 443, 476; S. Brown v. U. J.); Reed, (opinion Lyons cf. v York, 187-188; 156, S.U. Stein v. New . v n. Townsend 597-598, 2; Oklahoma, S.U. . S U. California, Burke, 738; Stroble U. S. . of the wide light past opinions light In of our maintain reasonably may men views which divergence of police investigative of various concerning propriety obvious employment of involving the procedures impossible It is much seems certain: brutality, this Amendment, in the Fourteenth enforcing Court, specific, with or to surround delimit, attempt precisely interrogation power restrictions, all-inclusive obtaining officers law enforcement allowed to state test for constitu- single litmus-paper No confessions. has been evolved: impermissible interrogation tionally by cross-questioning deprecated neither extensive — delay arraignment pro- nor undue English judges; — McNabb; prisoner— caution a nor failure to scribed com- Rules; permit nor refusal to enjoined by Judges’ in the stages counsel at legal munication with friends and only suspect pro- is still proceeding prisoner when the — Lisenba v. Cali- hibited several state statutes. See McNabb would be fol 585, case, 218 Minn. 15 N. W. 2d Kentucky suggesting protracted lowed. There is dictum ipso would not eo pre-arraignment delay of a con cause exclusion Commonwealth, Ky. 214, 218, 2d fession. Reed v. 226 S. W. Johnson, Idaho, where State (1949). 74 Idaho 514-515 v. Kotthoff, 67 overrules State v. part 638, limits and in 261 P. 2d reasoning (a seems in some 319, 177 P. 2d 474 decision whose Idaho McNabb) regarded now be as uncom respects similar to that of must People McNabb Michigan. only mitted. State follow Hamilton, 410, 102 N. 2d 738. 359 Mich. W.

fornia, 314 U. S. 219; California, Crooker v. 357 U. S. 433; Utah, Ashdown v. 357 U. S. 426.

Each of these factors, company all of the sur rounding circumstances —the duration and conditions of (if detention the confessor has been detained), the mani fest attitude of the police him, toward his physical and mental state, the diverse pressures sap or sustain his powers of resistance and self-control —is relevant.54 The ultimate test remains that which only has been the clearly established in Anglo-American test courts for two years: hundred the test of voluntariness. Is the confes sion product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If if is, he has to confess, willed it may be against used him. If it is if not, his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination impaired, the use of his confession offends due critically process Rogers Richmond, 365 U. S. The line . of distinction is that at which governing self-direction is lost and compulsion, of whatever nature or however infused, or propels helps to propel the confession.

54Cf. Lagay, Cicenia 357 U. S. 509: "... On the hand, one indisputable it is right that the to counsel in high criminal place cases has a in our procedural scheme of safe- guards. On hand, the other hardly it can be adoption denied that of petitioner’s position any request state denial of [that a defendant’s to confer during police counsel questioning process] violates due would constrict state in activities a many manner that in might instances impair ability their to solve difficult cases. A satis- factory reconciling formula for competing these is not to concerns be any found in pronouncement broad yield that one must the other in all Instead, instances. Court, . . . this judging in whether state prosecutions requirements the meet process, sought of due has proper achieve a by considering accommodation a defendant’s lack pertinent of counsel one determining element in from all the cir- cumstances whether a by conviction was attended fundamental unfairness.”

IV. a particular case, in a confession inquiry whether, at the involuntarily involves, made voluntarily or there is the business process. First, three-phased a least, external, “phe- facts, historical the finding the crude of surrounding the and events nomenological” occurrences concept of “voluntari- Second, because confession. is the state, a mental there which concerns ness” is one inferential, internal, recreation, largely imaginative application there is the Third, fact. “psychological” in- judgment fact of standards psychological conceptions ordinarily charac- larger legal formed comprehend both which, also, as of law but terized rules circumstances. anticipation of, factual from, induction highest court of State coming In a case here from phases the first of these may had, review be by that court. Deter- definitely determined, normally, assessments of the happened requires mination what stories, whose cases credibility relative of witnesses if are indeed not involving frequently, claims of coercion, contradictory. That ascertainment invariably, almost facts before whom those witnesses belongs to the trier of actually powers to whatever corrective appear, subject appellate processes State’s afford. all

This means that testimonial conflict is settled they made ex- judgment of the state courts. Where have form plicit findings those conclude us and findings fact, caveat, necessarily, basis of our review —with the one by findings wholly lacking sup- are be we not to bound Louisville, 362 U. S. port Thompson evidence. See explicit or the case findings, Where there are no a federal among findings, rejection of lacunae applying criminal courts constitutional claim state in proper constitutional standards resolves all conflicts that claim the criminal testimony bearing against on only In consider the instances, defendant. such we the the the portions uncontested record: evidence of prosecution's witnesses and so much of the evidence for in as, fairly read the context of the record as the defense Tennessee, whole, remains uncontradicted. v. Ashcraft Lyons Oklahoma, v. 143, 596, S. S. U. U. 152-153; Indiana, 602-603; (opinion Watts v. 338 U. S. 50-52 Nebraska, Gallegos v. J.); U. S. Frankfurter, York, 60-62; 156, 180-182; Payne Stein v. New S.U. Arkansas, Arizona, 560, 561-562; 356 U. S. Thomas v. S. 390, 402-403. 356 U. phases second and third of the inquiry —deter-

mination of how the accused reacted facts, to the external legal significance of how he although reacted — distinct as a matter of abstract analysis, prac- become operation tical inextricably so, interwoven. This is part, concepts by because the language expresses an unrepresentable otherwise mental reality are themselves generalizations importing preconceptions about reality the expressed. to be It so, also, apprehension because the of mental states is invariably almost a matter of induc- tion, more or less imprecise, margin and the of error which is thus introduced into the finding of “fact” must be accounted for in the formulation and application of the designed “rule” cope with such classes of facts. The 55The record in this case Rogers clear, does not make as did that Richmond, legal U. S. applied by the standard judge passing trial upon admissibility of Culombe’s confessions was, under decisions, this Court’s impermissible an one. In view of disposition upon which we make ease, facts of this viewed assumption under proper that a judgment criterion of was em ployed below, pursue we need not inquiry further whether judge’s trial requirements standard satisfied the regard constitutional ing coercion. It amphibian. pur- is itself an notion of “voluntariness” psychic an internal state describe ports at once to legal purposes. Since characterize that state for this “to which very is the issue review characterization Indiana, (opinion v. 338 U. S. sits,” Court Watts is description, too, matter of J.), Frankfurter, California, 314 Lisenba v. necessarily open here. See Texas, 547, 550; v. 316 U. S. 219, 237-238; S. Ward U. York, v. New Haley Ohio, Malinski 596, 599; S.U. 401, 404, U. S. ade- scope of review would suffice No more restricted For the rights. federal constitutional quately protect upon proc- the due mental state involuntariness affirmatively can established question ess turns never be and it by inference; circumstantially is, than other —that our preclude of fact to competent cannot be to the trier declining inferences which simply by review to draw is to be compel. weight, course, facts historical Great by are the state the inferences which drawn accorded to with due case, appropriate, In a it is courts. dubious the state court’s relations, regard to federal-state the uncon- where, But on determination should control. in motion forces set happenings, coercive tested external unmistakably are officials by state law enforcement prevailing all states forces, under action; where these confession; enough to draw forth powerful stress, are forth does come fact, the confession where, him ; from have been extorted by the defendant to claimed act is sub- as a man would who he has acted and where this is all that extracting process such an jected to —where the con- judgment in the record —a State’s appears cannot stand. voluntary fession was does this Court applied, has been . force “. . [I]f not the whether or determination leave to local mind is torture of voluntary. There confession was fear affected is as much the will body; as as well where point there comes And as force. we of what as judges ignorant be should not Court Indiana, supra, at 52. Watts as men.” know V. facts as historical the uncontested turn, then,

We legal as to judgment Since record. in this they appear is Clause Due Process non under the vel voluntariness aof circumstances the relevant totality of the drawn from is of them account a detailed situation, particular offered were confessions Culombe’s When unavoidable. constitutionally to as objected prosecution the Court, pursuant Superior inadmissible, the Connecticut the excused procedure,56 Connecticut applicable the coercion. issue of bearing on the evidence jury and took forth the facts findings setting explicit It made later these of the basis On deemed relevant. credited and it aspects not cover all they as do findings and —insofar uncontradicted, that testimony evidence of —of as established.57 may be taken following 682-683; 113, 116-118, A. 2d Buteau, 136 Conn. State v. 604, 506-507. Lorain, 141 Conn. 694, 699-700, 109 A. 2d State v. McCarthy, 133 Conn. 171, 177, 49 A. 2d 596-597. State And see upon testi following are based statement of facts Portions Taborsky, Culombe's of mony record in case into the introduced Virtually all jointly Culombe. co-defendant, tried who was introduced, capacity was concerning Culombe’s mental of the evidence relevant issue of coercion the court of the time of the not at the trial stage later confessions, but at a admissibility of to the Culombe’s insanity. Since defense trial, with Culombe’s in connection Supreme at the time that in the record all of this evidence claim of rejected federal Culombe’s Court Errors considered opinion does indicate court coercion, and since the of state it as a matter improperly before it considered material ruling would effect such decide what procedure, we need not now Alabama, Blackburn scope Compare review. of our have on 361 U. 209-211. S.

In February 1957, the Connecticut State Police at Hartford were investigating a number of criminal inci- dents. In connection with certain of (other these than the Kurp’s Gasoline Station killings Britain) New was decided on Saturday, February 23 to have two men, Arthur Culombe and Joseph Taborsky, picked up and viewed witnesses. Lieutenant Rome, who was charge of the investigation, delegated teams of officers to go to different addresses where the men might be located.

Shortly after 2 p. m., two officers accosted Culombe and Taborsky entering a car front of the home of the latter’s mother Hartford. told They, Taborsky that Lieutenant Rome wanted to talk to him at State Police Headquarters. They said that this was not an arrest. Taborsky stated that he was willing go and Culombe drove him to Headquarters, following the officer’s car. Leaving Taborsky, Culombe immediately drove home.

Shortly after his arrival, at p. m., about 2:30 Sergeant Paige and another officer came to Culombe’s apartment to bring him back to Headquarters. They told Culombe that he was not arrested, that Lieutenant Rome wanted to talk to him. Culombe drove Sergeant Paige to Head- quarters in his, Culombe’s, car. this time, From Culombe was again never out of the effective control of police.

Lieutenant Rome spoke briefly to Culombe and Tabor- sky and asked if them they agree would to accompany several officers to Coventry and Hill Rocky purposes for of possible identification. They consented. Sergeant Paige and two other officers took Culombe and Taborsky on this which trip, consumed about three hours, between 3 and 6 m. p. In the car, Culombe was questioned concerning possible his participation in several crimes. He was not then regarded as under arrest. During the stops at Coventry and Rocky Hill, after Culombe and Taborsky, at the officers’ request, had entered country a store and package a store feigning to be customers, the in the time of periods for brief left were

two men per- Griffin present. Griffin Officer only with cruiser liquor a bottle the contents drink them to mitted carried. Taborsky which a diner stopped group Hartford to the return

On order to told Taborsky were and Culombe dinner. for Headquarters At ate well. and they wanted what concerning Paige an hour for questioned was Culombe gun he was Paige He told guns. possession his home which his guns at eight seven or and had collector Culombe reason police. turn over agreed were guns was that Paige revealed information have Paige could knew and Culombe registered any him in event. them to traced home, his Culombe took officer and another Paige went to and living room in the left them Culombe where guns. with two him found they Following, the bedroom. he had in a drawer cartridges clip found They They took safe. a small guns six more just closed waited left officer second and the Culombe these. holding the officer cruiser, near street on the together while twenty minutes approximately for arm, Culombe’s questioning apartment in Culombe’s remained Paige wife. Culombe’s Paige Headquarters. back to taken

Culombe discontinued while, then for a short him with talked Culombe talked Rome night. investigation or three- a three- over apparently hours, two for about Kurp’s concerned The talk period. and-a-half-hour Culombe this time At matters. and other killings would Rome rooms. separate kept Taborsky were man until with each staying other, then one, question have he could information bit of some got Rome, questioning respites During checked. room. interrogation in the remained Culombe At one told that he point, Culombe Rome wanted lawyer give any specific see a but did not the name of lawyer. replied any Rome have that Culombe could lawyer he wanted if Culombe tell Rome what would lawyer Culombe, illiterate, to call. Rome knew that an telephone directory. was unable to use the About 10 arrest p. m., put Rome Culombe under by virtue of a arrest with- permitting Connecticut statute arresting out a warrant where the officer has cause to suspect felony. that the arrested has committed a person requires persons pre- The statute so arrested be sented promptness proper with reasonable before the authority.58 Headquar- Culombe taken to a cell at ters midnight. However, log sometime before book customarily prisoners which notation is made of de- Headquarters entry tained cell blocks shows no Saturday night. Culombe Concerning purpose questioning began Saturday intermittently on and continued until Culombe following Wednesday, Sergeant Paige confessed the can- didly admitted that was intended to obtain a confes- sion if a confession Lieutenant was obtainable.59 Rome agreed kept got that he had after Culombe until he prove answers which he could correct.60 There were Stat., Stat., Supp., 195d, Conn. Gen. now Conn. Gen. § police department . . . 6-49: “. . . of the state § [M]embers arrest, any person previous complaint warrant, shall without who grounds or is such officer has reasonable to believe has committed committing felony. Any presented person so arrested shall be promptness proper authority.” reasonable before Culombe, “Q. questioning All of the from the time that he was custody object obtaining taken into was with the in view of a confes obtainable, true, that is isn’t it ? A. That is sion if a confession was (Cross-examination Sergeant Paige.) correct.” 60“Q. kept him, very You after to use conservative words? A. Q. you you Yes, sir. the answers that wanted? Until received was warned time Culombe any that at indication no anyone Paige nor silent. Neither right keep his concerning con- Culombe hearing cautioned Paige's rights.61 stitutional for questioned 24, Culombe February Sunday,

On denied killings and Britain about the New a short time Paige questioned also He was that he was involved. The robbery. about another Hartford detective and a driven to Taborsky were morning following Culombe at Detec- wait after a substantial and, New Britain breach of booked for Headquarters building, were tive Crowds Headquarters. Britain Police peace at New were street the stations lined both sides of the where Hartford, route back to booking, After the en located. stopped Kurp’s at rode the cruiser which Culombe if gas recognized asked station. Rome Culombe Monday after- place; Culombe that he did not. On said again questioned Headquarters noon Culombe was as as other matters. Lieutenant concerning Kurp's well questioned Sergeant him for hours. Rome two or three questioned twenty also him minutes half an Paige or but hour, appears to have been concurrent with Rome’s questioning. Culombe then confessed to the right, No, That’s isn’t it? A. sir. we received the answers Until proved Q. you which we were wanted correct. answers that No, guilt? sir, were admissions of You wanted those answers? A. guilty. Q. determined, not if he were not You were bound get you, Lieutenant, No, weren’t such answers? A. sir. Not if guilty. prove he were wanted we could were We answers that [Sic] (Cross-examination Rome.) correct.” of Lieutenant 61“Q. they rights, rights? Were told of their Constitutional Q. anyone A. I didn’t tell them. You didn’t else tell it to hear No, sir, (Cross-examination them? A. not that I of.” know Sergeant Paige.) responses It is unclear from the context of these they period whether are meant to refer to the whole of Culombe’s only Saturday of detention or afternoon. goods canned and made a

theft certain statement about writing. them that was reduced to Tuesday, February On from 26, Culombe was removed his cell to be taken to the New Britain Police for Court presentation peace charge. on the breach of the At that time him that brought Rome told he was to be to court and an a opportunity lawyer. have to see At New would again Britain there were on the but not street, crowds heavy Monday’s. as as in

The courtroom was Once Culombe and it, crowded. in Taborsky placed prisoners’ pen, wire-mesh, were a affair in cage-like Photographers the corner of the room. photographs with flashbulbs took of them in the pen. pen The crowd was between the and the bench. judge’s convened, presented When court men were for two peace. required plead. breach of the Culombe was not He not was heard the court. He was not taken out pen before the bench. He brought was might told he have counsel. No one informed the had judge previously lawyer. Culombe asked to see a At Lieutenant attor- suggestion, prosecuting Rome’s ney giving moved for a continuance. Without Culombe an in participate any occasion to contest the motion or inway proceedings, the court continued the case for committing week and issued a mittimus Culombe County the Hartford Jail until due released course law. Taborsky

The idea presenting Culombe on charges peace Rome’s, of breach of the was collabora- prosecutor.62 purpose, tion with alternate Its Rome might Rome admitted that he told someone that he was have taking presenting peace charge a chance Culombe on a breach of the (there chance, said, was a as to whether or not the could get peace), a conviction for breach of the and that he had thanked prosecutor coming the alternate down to Hartford from New night Sunday request on Britain at his connection with this matter. investigate some serious crimes testified, help was “To me peace This breach of the state of Connecticut.” been nolled, having later Culombe never prosecution was “It before the Police Court because wasn’t brought back Taborsky’s testimony case, In admitted necessary.” Taborsky (and have booked Rome conceded that he could legal proceedings since the hence, presumably, Culombe, prosecuted at all simul- against stages the two men were Monday, him on Sunday presented taneously) on Rome, time, more more delayed he, but because wanted although the man on interrogation. Presenting Monday, in accordance with Connecticut would have been prompt- with reasonable requiring presentation statute good “in accordance with not, testified, Rome ness, investigation.” leaving Court, stop the Police and after another On Kurp’s, Headquarters Culombe was returned to Taborsky questioned by he and Hartford, where were during period an indeterminate Rome and other officers that more than about two hours. At cannot have been afternoon, or 4 that Rome visited the Culombe home for half an hour. questioned and Culombe’s wife Rome testimony The is Lieutenant Rome’s. 64“Q. presented Monday, you? You him on couldn’t could have Q. Why Yes, Q. you No, A. sir. And didn’t do that? A. sir. you didn’t do . . . It wasn’t in with it? accordance Witness: good investigation. Q. Statute, But it was in accordance with the Q. promptness bring Yes, wasn’t it? A. sir. reasonable to With proper authority? promptness him before a A. Reasonable —Tues Q. day morning, yes. bring him ... You didn’t before the Court Q. you Monday? No, promptness, on A. sir. And with reasonable Q. have, you? Yes, you could couldn’t A. sir. But wanted to hold you? Objection grilling, him and do more didn’t some Mr. Bill: Q. grilling. I to to the will sustain it. You wanted The Court: interrogate more, you? Yes, him some didn’t A. Mr. Burke. Q. why you bring proper him before the author And that is didn’t ity you (Cross- Yes, time? Burke.” wanted some more A. Mr. — Rome.) examination of Lieutenant thereafter, shortly where, Headquarters to returned then a cruiser police brought arrived, Mrs. Culombe Rome, made arrangements to pursuant policewoman agree- her own least, at the or, request by her own but briefly spoke her. She were with Her children ment. and go along if “would her she asked who Rome, see if he and her husband table to cards on lay the to then taken was Mrs. Culombe confess.” wouldn’t police- and Rome presence where, in rooma an during quarter to Culombe she talked woman, Mrs. Culombe in the room. were not The children hour. Britain the New responsible if he were Culombe asked tell the he should he were him that if told killings this confrontation permitted Rome the truth. police He a confession.” getting way “it is another because help to Mrs. Culombe he asked that admitted tried indirectly; them help she did and that confession. her husband’s securing as a means use her continued room, Rome left Mrs. Culombe After conversations concerning certain Culombe question and Rome Taborsky. Culombe Culombe between called Culombe’s Rome room and the door went “Honey, saying: room, into the daughter thirteen-year-old they went how me tell You here and .... come your Taborsky and talked —Joe bedroom into the did come girl indication There is no father.” anything. that she said room or into the came to Paige his cell. returned Culombe was but Culombe him questions, ask began to cell and up or and choked family his with the scene upset Paige talk. to not want did Paige that he and told sobbed for Culombe and sat with questioning the discontinued to came officers other minutes until twenty or fifteen mit- to the County pursuant Jail to the Culombe remove Rome’s. testimony Lieutenant The admitted Paige Britain Police Court. timus the New had been an “or- by his wife confrontation that Culombe’s “upset.” prisoner was agreed deal,” Rome and 9 that in at between 8 logged jail was Culombe night. February 27, jail Wednesday, a. m.

At about 10 on gates him to the cell, led guards came to Culombe’s Paige Sergeant custody him and turned into jail, was officers. Notation other Police and several State had Police jail that the State made on the books of the until 1 Headquarters Held at “borrowed” Culombe.66 interrogation to the brought was then p. m., Culombe Murphy. Paige and Detective questioning by room for Culombe, first alone in the room Paige, who was at lying had been that Culombe began by telling Culombe Culombe did suggested that, to him. He whenever say “I don’t want Culombe question, want to answer and there agreed, lying. instead of Culombe to answer” investi being the crimes held a list of upon Paige, who about questioning it Culombe gated, through went Answering question, each Culombe in each. participation did there or that he that he had not been stated either gotten had Paige it. talk about When not want took the list having in, come through list, Murphy, had questions that Culombe repeated the same over left the Paige. Paige or refused to answer answered Murphy then re-entered. asked while, for a room cooperate. not want whether Culombe did Culombe decision that he did but that was hard said Culombe in fear asked whether Culombe was Murphy make. that he was fear of answered anyone Culombe half, and a approximately an hour Taborsky. After looking for four they were Culombe told borrowing illegal under Superior ruled that this Court unnecessary law; Supreme Errors found it Court of Connecticut pass point. on any killing that he had not done men and guns and two listening been Rome, who had Immediately, himself. system, an intercommunication interrogation over Detective shortly thereafter, and, the room came into the officers agreed to show arrived. Culombe O'Brien also that requested He be found.67 guns would where and was assured in an unmarked car travel they insignia. At about identifying no carry cruiser would Headquar- left the four officers and Culombe p. m., 3:30 home. ters for Culombe’s questioned Culombe ride, the short Rome

During up three officers sat the car. The other the rear seat of give answers which Rome began Culombe front. When had O’Brien, who Rome told regarded significant, as O’Brien, who take the wheel. driving, Murphy to let been that this meant understood shorthand, skilled at In He did so. down. to take the conversation he was crimes, in a number of participation admitted Culombe gave He holdup. station detailed including gas he in which Kurp’s happened of what at description the station Taborsky had robbed that he related proprietor had shot both the Taborsky and that to the content of officers Several testified customer. trial. confession oral police photographers and two

Culombe, the four officers they There apartment. project the Culombes’ entered five-year-old her younger, Mrs. Culombe with found a cache behind directing After Rome to daughter. concealed weapons were cabinet where certain medicine gun, of a containing parts compartment a safe and to Attorney, be told requested Bill, that Mr. the State’s Culombe he wanted cooperating. He said that doing, what he was that was seem he made. officers see the statements that Mr. Bill to cooperation be notified of that Mr. Bill would have told Culombe but, fact, so notified. Mr. Bill was never living room the his wife the spoke with Culombe he told her that He detective. of at least one presence make a clean and his conscience to decided cleanse had things; Taborsky might afraid that he was that breast that He also said cooperating. he and so was her, harm far as embarrassment save Mrs. Culombe to wanted he apart- Leaving concerned.68 neighbors were as officers to directed cruiser, in the Culombe ment the location pointed out he swampy area where nearby of another gun part of one disposed he had in which swamp where to another He led them Kurp’s. at used night on the been worn said to have a raincoat stops he like After several other holdup was recovered. after 6 arriving just Headquarters, to taken back was in the questioning to brief response There, m. p. he Kelly, and Commissioner Major Remer presence of early afternoon. his confessions repeated he afterwards Shortly to dinner. was taken Culombe Headquarters to had Culombe, Mrs. who come saw again sick. Mrs. The child was five-year-old. her the child was sick and that told Culombe Culombe policewoman thought he that said that Culombe At if she asked. about hospital were take to the would County Detective Paige, O’Brien p. m., Rome, room to interrogation to the brought Culombe Matus writing. Culombe made his several confessions reduce taking The manner of them statements. a number of illiteracy and his by Culombe’s (no complicated doubt answers) rambling non-consecutive tendency give Culombe; Culombe questioned was as follows: Rome daughter, pres who was five-year-old testified his Culombe The him at that time. room, appeared sick to officers in the ent any in the child and they notice illness testified that did not health, concerning her apprehension but expressed no had Culombe girl hospital that had to be taken to a undisputed that the little it is mumps. night with into narrative the answer transposed

answered; Rome phrase dictated it; Rome agreed form; Culombe was statement completed Each O’Brien. sentence to or them related last of The signed by read to and Culombe. crime committed another and to holdup Kurp’s to the shortly before started It was day. same earlier on a. m. at 12:30 was reached episode Kurp’s 11 m. and the p. compose. a half hour required Kurp’s statement interview, four-and-a-half-hour of this At the end He sorry sight. clothing a unshaved, Culombe was Police in a cell State night spent that tired. He because request, apparently at his own Headquarters Hart- lodged the still who was Taborsky, of was afraid that signed which confession Although the ford Jail. it was trial, at the an exhibit put as night was not of receipt evidence by the the fully jury laid before and by stipulation for substituted typed paper another the embodied testified, officers contents, several whose mid- shortly after told them what Culombe of substance Wednesday.69 night ref also contained Wednesday-midnight confession the Because in evi physically offered offense,it was not to criminal erences another the defense for the and for State trial. Counsel the dence copy of substantially document, verbatim a

stipulated that another it. for confession, might be substituted Kurp’s portion of the the paper prepared a Monday It was confession. This was the so-called was statement Wednesday-midnight the police from the Monday. following Notwith by, the signed to, Culombe read and for the foundation a prosecution laid standing stipulation, the the offering testi Monday exhibit the confession as an of introduction had made a statement first, Culombe jury, that mony before writing; to it had been committed night; second, that Wednesday typed substantially to the writing identical was third, this that (witnesses stand Monday on the signed on paper which Culombe Monday documents). The confession compared the examined and circumstances, the these jury. to Under submitted was then was much Wednesday-midnight statement effective use brought February 28, had Culombe Thursday, Rome On Taborsky. At talking he was to into a room where his confes- repeated direction, Culombe the Lieutenant’s Superior in the presented sion. Later Culombe pursuant first-degree murder charge Court on morning. presiding judge The issued that bench warrant silent and to have keep rights warned Culombe if he wanted counsel asked Culombe counsel. He did that he that he did. Culombe said replied Culombe attorney defender, that he wanted public not want his services. pay afford to McDonough but could not that the court would see promised judge expense. his choice at state attorney had the Culombe wished to He then informed Culombe him charges against into the investigation conduct an into their releasing Culombe requested and had an order willing if Asked he was custody purpose. for that told that said that he was. He was cooperate, Culombe the sites would be taken to mean that he might willing to again said that he was of various crimes any with them cooperate he wanted “to cooperate; released way Accordingly, I can.” the court Culombe of con- purpose for the the State Police Commissioner tinuing investigation. re-enacted the Kurp’s gasoline station,

At Culombe Later that after- and other officers. holdup for Rome detectives talked to Headquarters, at New York noon, killing. him York No further investi- concerning New crimes was conducted gation relating to the Connecticut remained the cell block day Friday. or Culombe his County Jail, rather than at the at Headquarters, at purposes gone physically jury, for to the and same as if had may Wednesday- we treat the presented issue here constitutional York, put in Malimki New midnight evidence. See as confession 324 U. S. McDon- Mr. he first saw Friday night On request.

own his and also saw wife. counsel, court-appointed ough, during two Culombe examined psychiatrists Two state evening, m. that p. At 10 March 2. Saturday, hours on to the called out in his he cell, was alone when Culombe that he wanted and cell block said assigned to the guard Kurp’s to the relating information some volunteer to spoken to previously had not guard The holdup. Art,” when say, “Hi, except during his watch Culombe nar- now at o’clock. Culombe duty first came on Kurp’s. at happened had version of what a new rated statements previous to his similar generally This was had he himself shot in it he admitted except that information to telephoned The Kurpiewski. guard At him. trial thanked Culombe Rome and Lieutenant this oral contents related the occasion guard the jury. to the confession to whom Culombe guard the Rome,

Sunday morning, inter- officer and another before, night had confessed In answer room. interrogation viewed Culombe he wanted to said that question, Culombe Rome’s then He given. previously that he had story change same Following the Kurpiewski. shot that he had said Wednesday night, on been used that had procedure Britain the New version of his new statement of detailed it. It was signed Culombe composed and killings was in the afternoon trial. Later at the evidence received at Culombe Rome spoke with attorney McDonough sign any more not to Culombe He told Headquarters. that he He told Rome police. to talk papers or further and bothering Culombe not want did Headquarters from be removed that Culombe requested was done. This County Jail. March Lieutenant Rome Monday, following day, jail Culombe visited O’Brien Detective typed a statement brought new half an hour. Rome substantially ver- This was police. prepared had of the document which Culombe transcription batim all references to the sec- but with signed Wednesday, on 15, 1956, on December separate crime committed ond, transcription to Culombe Rome read deleted. at trial. did it. It was admitted Rome signed Culombe signature was to notify McDonough that Culombe’s not if did, that he McDon- because he was worried be obtained sign. testi- Culombe Rome ough permit would not attorney: could “do better without” fied I coopera- ... needed his cooperative. Culombe “was got it.” tion cooperative police, thus with the

The man who was mental thirty-three-year-old was a Culombe, Arthur intelligence quotient with an of the moron class defective and a half age and a mental of nine nine sixty-four70 wholly Expert illiterate.71 witnesses years. He was condi- appraisal of Culombe’s mental State, whose at trial, favorable adduced classified tion was the most high grade mentally him moron” and “a rather “high as a that his reactions would not be defective” and testified chronological nine-year-old the same as those of the back- greater physical maturity because his and fuller him a ground experience gave perspective nine-year-old possess. was, however, would Culombe “handicapped.” had been in mental institutions for diagnosis

Culombe and treatment. He had been in law trouble an had in prison since he was adolescent and been at least escape twice Connecticut since his successful from training Massachusetts school for mental defectives. 70As on the measured full scale Wechsler-Bellevue test. The nor intelligence quotient ninety mal on this scale is to one hundred and ten. only Culombe can read and write his name. arrest his preceding immediately years three

During freight a performed, adequately and down, had held young and two wife supported had his and job handler’s said for the State testifying A psychiatrist children. was man, Culombe not a fearful he was although that, intimidated.72 could be and suggestible on March confession, his last days after Ten murder. first-degree indicted for was Culombe VI. Wednesday only case, this of

In the view we take coerced, were these If need be discussed.73 confessions by supported convincingly conviction, however Culombe’s York, v. New Malinski cannot stand. evidence, other 181; Payne S. California, 343 U. 401; Stroble S.U. of circumstances all the Arkansas, 560. On S. U. these con- to conclude compelled are this record we petitioner their use voluntary. By fessions were of law. due process deprived capacity diagnosis of Culombe’s favorable Again, this is the most by appointed report psychologist of a clinical regard. The for the defense and for the State both to examine Culombe the court equip deficient mental being with saddled addition to states: “In Mr. C. is problems, try cope life’s he must with which ment in indi frequently found so defect of that character possessed also enormously suggestible. he is calibre: of low intellectual viduals his judgment, sufficient critical lacking capacity for Thus, behaving way can living his and thinking, pattern manner . . .” to him. persons closest easily be influenced those all concerning the voluntariness trial Timely question was raised at found confessions, both were Wednesday Culombe’s of each of certiorari petition voluntary by court. the Connecticut written, only to the questions presented among the this Court adverts intimate However, of the in view Wednesday-midnight confession. regard confessions,we midnight between the afternoon connection confession, as the oral fairly comprising a claim petition as unconstitutionally coercion. well, is tainted prior decisions body of this Court’s Consideration this con- coerced informs which have found confessions question particular although clusion. For whether and broken criminal defendant’s will has been overborne decided on the repetition, that must be one, deserves only by it is case, facts of his peculiar, individual set of standards of situations that close, comparison relevant doc- effectively enforceable —not which are solid In approaching evolved. trinaire or abstract —can be at the outset cases may put aside decisions, these we physical threats of bru- involving physical brutality,74 convincingly terror-arousing, and other- tality,75 and such as the interrogation incidents of unexplainable, wise jail night questioning at for prisoners removal of from jail from shuttling prisoners places,76 secluded homes, questioning,77 at distances from their for jail, standing on their feet keeping prisoners unclothed or obvious, long during questioning.78 No such periods for may put in this record. aside appear crude devices We has been used to deprivation sleep cases where also him79 bald sap strength drug and or where prisoner’s rudimentary need for is a factor disregard of his food subject adds was not that to enfeeblement.80 Culombe may put stamped to wakes or starvation. aside cases We 74 278; 316 Texas, Brown v. 297 U. S. cf. Ward v. Mississippi, Pennsylvania Claudy, U. S. 547. And see rel. Herman v. 350 U. S. ex 116. 75 Cf. Malinski 324 U. S. 401. And see v. York, Lee v. New Mississippi, 332 S. 742. U. 76 530; 313 547. Texas, Alabama, v. 310 U. S. v. U. S. White Vernon 77 Texas, Ward v. 316 U. S. 547. 401; S. York, Texas, v. New 324 U. S. v. U. Malinski Lomax 544. 227; Leyra Chambers v. S. v. 347 U. S. Florida, Denno, U. 80 Payne v. 356 U. S. 560. Arkansas, mob,81 lynch threat of the overhanging with people crowds of that Culombe saw although it is true presentation New booking his to witness gathered of small must be this circumstance accounted Britain, no mobs at Hartford where here. There were significance Police Head- securely imprisoned State held he was may put gruelling, aside cases of Finally, we quarters.82 periods.83 protracted over unrelaxing questioning intensely his first confes- prior to session most extended Culombe’s respites. half hours with substantial ran three sion one but sev- concerned not questioning all of Because relentless, aspect an present offenses, it does eral to break concen- designed probing constantly repeated four-and- Particularly, the sustained resistance. trated Wednesday-mid- preceded interview a-half-hour mat- up with wholly taken almost confession was night resisting, from time, far and at than Kurp’s, other ters the police. wholly cooperating Culombe Ohio, 332 U. S. Haley v. Similarly, our decisions Alabama, persua- are not 361 U. S. v. Blackburn Arkansas, Payne Florida, 227; 309 U. S. Chambers S. 560. U. 82 Arizona, 356 Thomas S. 390. U. Cf. v. Tennessee, U., (relay questioning for more S. v. Ashcraft Indiana, pause); Watts v. thirty-six one five-minute hours with than m. p. to 2:30 or 3 a. (relay questioning 11:30 m. from S. 49 338 U. m. on four p. m. to 3 a. day from 5:30 of detention and the first on Carolina, succeeding days); Harris South 338 U. S. v. the five during evening throughout and one questioning in a hot cubicle (relay day; then, respite, the next one-hour hours, half a and a eleven questioning hours of following, than a half-dozen day more on Denno, made); Leyra 347 U. S. v. the confession was before day; 10 evening on the first throughout afternoon (questioning m. on the third second; then from 9 a. midnight on the m. to a. questioning fourth, with the morning a. m. on the until 8:30 confessed). Leyra Cf. recess, until brief resuming, after a later California, Lisenba Florida, But see U S. 227. Chambers S. 219. 314 U. Haley, fifteen-year-old boy, here. a was arrested at

sive midnight, taken to a station at where home and questioned by relays he was of officers until he con- legal at 5 a. m. He had seen no friend or counsel fessed during subsequently time and he held incom- totality circum- days. municado for three On the held coerced. But stances, the Court his confession questioned concerning Culombe was never one crime during five five Indeed, questioned hours. he was never early hours at a stretch. questioned He was never morning hours. Haley, questioning And while whose began immediately on his arrival the station did not let up confessed, every expect until he had reason to that his relay interrogators keep pace intended to up till broke,84Culombe, at the time of his confessions, had been questioned previous days on several and knew the sessions had not run more than a few hours. Moreover, despite age Culombe, his mental of nine or nine Expert cannot be viewed as a child. testi- half, mony the record, may which the Connecticut courts credited, precludes have application to Culombe of appropriate standards to the adolescent Haley. Nor, without guessing, laymen as untutored and not professionally informed as judges, suscep- about tibility aof mental defective overreaching, can we apply to Culombe the standards controlling the case of psychotic, active expert Blackburn. The evidence of hallucinations, delusional ideas and complete loss of contact with his surroundings which we found uncontra- dicted in the Blackburn record has counterpart no Culombe’s. Also, Blackburn, Haley, like confessed after protracted questioning eight or hours, nine session— with a one-hour break, Blackburn’s case—more ex- hausting any single than period that Culombe underwent.

84 Spano York, See also Newv. 360 S.U. judgment must enter our hand, the other what On sug- is he equipment mental about Culombe’s —that us permit not subject and to intimidation —does gestible comparable him of resistance powers to attribute to defendant by the possessed found those which Court York, haggled S. who v. New U. Cooper Stein confessed,85or he for terms with the officials to whom S. California, in Lisenba v. U. defendant James that there before his confession bragged immediately who Attorney’s office to in the District enough not men were in the effective him was detained make talk. Culombe and a substantial nights four custody police for that During he confessed. portion days of five before intermit- although repeatedly, so questioned time he was have been made to believe that he cannot but tently, police that wanted police hardly denied, what them.86 Other than get and determined to answers were Cooper, experienced crimi Stein, was “an The defendant like ignorant timid.” 346 young, soft, or These men were not nal. . . . too, criminal S., Although Culombe, has had considerable at 185. U. resistance, toughening his experience, him, its as a school value capacities. light mental duly of his subnormal must be discounted in prosecution is that “as testimony psychiatric expert for the of a he is a fear suggestible. I think that is don’t mental defective he own intimidated, to use his be man. I think that he can ful He else has.’... Moxie that someone expression T don’t have the say this —with I would suggestible be intimidated. ... and he can in the last three gets along, I said he did influences, he as benevolent influences, intimidating malignant years. sufficiently and a half With he doesn’t.” Arizona, (confession before Compare 356 U. S. 390 Thomas v. following morning hearing after peace preliminary on justice of the rights to counsel arrest; warned of his defendant noon of defendant’s (defendant Utah, guilty); Ashdown 357 U. S. plead with coun and can consult to answer that she can refuse cautioned (defendant repeatedly warned sel) Allen, ; Brown 344 U. S. counsel; whenever assistance of silent and have can remain stop the conversation he wanted told defendant jail). returned to request respected he was 626 police and the officials who questioners jailers

his only people: two spoke he Britain, him at New booked who, wife, afraid, and his own Taborsky, of whom he was him asked Rome, with Lieutenant by prearrangement very duration of such truth.87 The police tell the in which we this case from those distinguishes detention sev- given after voluntary confessions have found to be day of arrest. See or less on questioning' eral hours Lagay, 357 181; 343 Cicenia v. California, v. U. S. Stroble Utah, cf. 426; 357 S. Crooker 504; Ashdown v. U. U. S. in cases, In S. 433. other California, v. U. made on confessions resting convictions we have sustained of the defend- questioning detention, after prolonged had discontin- systematic,88 or been sporadic, ant was not (defendant Allen, saw counsel Compare Brown S. 443 v. U. by during detention, one of whom was located two friends and at least appears to police request; true that of these friends at his it is one regards, but there cooperating with the in certain have been attempted persuade prisoner to con she is no indication that (defendant’s family fess) ; Lyons Oklahoma, wife and S. 596 v. U. jail). him visited in 88 Gallegos Nebraska, 55, In S. the defendant was v. U. questioned, gave and, arrested in Texas Texas authorities when custody again questioned He in false name. was held —after pur twenty-one, forty-eight hours —for the first of then of intervals identity. occasion, gave pose establishing the second his his On following name and admitted that he had been in Nebraska. On day, he to a committed in that State. He was removed confessed crime officers, during questioning Nebraska to Nebraska and his first again confession, he No a week after his Texas confessed. claim peti pressed Gallegos, for the coercion was in this Court counsel illegally relying prolonged without tioner on the fact of detention preliminary appointment In examination and before of counsel. Lyons questioned for Oklahoma, 322 S. the defendant was v. U. (where day arrest, jail two hours on the of his then remained him) family days. period he for eleven At the end of this visited subjected prolonged, night-long interrogation session under was to one intimidating and he confessed. This confession circumstances having concededly He evidence, been con- offered coerced. during period ued a considerable prior confession,89 so presented, did not the circumstances there find, we police interrogators had accused. overborne the closely comparable present cases most to the one Pennsylvania, on their facts are Turner 338 U. S. Pennsylvania, Johnson and Fikes v. Ala- 340 U. S. bama, Turner, U. S. 191. like arrested Culombe, was without a and, having brought warrant without been magistrate,90 before a was during nights detained four days and five before Culombe, about he confessed. Like questioned daylight he was and also, evening hours, by one, sometimes sometimes officers. Turner several again evening, fessed the same he been to the state after had taken penitentiary custody warden; and into and the delivered attending question whether raised was the coercive influences pattern initial confession also the later one. The whole infected Lyons present factors in was different from that of the case and wholly Bayer, involved different considerations. Cf. States United Louisiana, (defend- 532. And see Wilson U. S. U. S. 901 interrogated during following ant been had four or five hours his confessed; days repeat story arrest and two later he was asked to his again confessed, being and he there no indication the record that questioned occasion). he was on the second Allen, In Brown v. S. the defendant had been U. Monday, questioned arrested on twice an hour or two for on day, questioned daily couple Tuesday and for a of hours on and Wednesday. Thursday and, he On was confronted witnesses they information, after related certain he was asked whether he had any questions had to ask he them. On each occasion was warned right that he need make no statement that he had a assist any again ance of before he made He counsel statement. was not following Saturday, charges against interviewed until the when the him, him were read was asked if he wanted to make a state ment, questioning and —without also note confessed. See —he supra. appearance Court, Culombe’s before the New Britain Police legitimated law, whether or not it his detention under Connecticut hardly protection preliminary him the afforded of a examination respect suspected. p. 632, to the felonies of which he was See infra. only saw during detention; his Culombe no visitors

saw him It is true that gave support. scant wife, who to a total of more interrogation amounted Turner’s than approximately twelve twenty-three hours, against as questioned prior was half hours that Culombe one questioned that Turner was on confession, his first (in sessions, two on days many as as six hours two for questioned was never occasion), each while Culombe also any day. than on It is true more three hours one only single crime, involved questioning that Turner’s as defective, But Turner was not a mental not several. significant pressures brought and certain Culombe, intimidating family, bear on Culombe —the use of his hearing Britain Police Court effect of the New —were Turner held Turner’s absent in the record. Court confession coerced. as detained

Johnson, accomplice, indicted Turner’s same during approximately period the same and under the questioned, however, conditions as was Turner. He was only for than six hours these five somewhat more over At days, sitting. never more than an hour and a half at a another, least at one time or participated, five officers questioning. separate trial, At his both his own con fession and Turner’s admitted. This reversed were Court per curiam.91

The in Pikes facts on which the Court relied were these. a with a defendant, twenty-seven-year-old Negro The third-grade and education, apparently schizophrenic highly suggestible, previously and who had been involved only occasion, apprehended by with the law one was on private in a Ala- persons neighborhood Selma, white Saturday. at on a Jailed and held bama, midnight entering admittedly Without into further of this not discussion unambiguous decision, may it, least, reffirm one draw from at the a ance of what in Turner. was decided and four questioned he charges, was open police on dur- and Sunday, on in two sessions five hours a half or around he was driven sessions the second these ing That burglaries. unsolved several locations of to the city county, called home of his the sheriff day he talked his talked to Monday he On request. at his to Selma morning in the questioning hours of After two employer. Selma miles from fifty-five prison a state taken to he was ques- he was home, where from his miles and eighty and short afternoon a hours in during several tioned segre- kept he was Thereafter, evening. in the while and only jailers he saw where prison, gation unit counsel, nor was not consult He did police officers. requirement magistrate despite before a brought — magistrate’s for a taken forthwith that he be law Alabama his confession. time of to the hearing prior— Wednesday On Tuesday questioned. he was On into and in the afternoon hours several questioned he was three totaled questioning Thursday the evening. On day on sessions, in two a half hours turned him, was to see the prison had who come father, consisting confession, first evening his Thursday away. sugges- leading or often yes-and-no answers largely Saturday he taken. examiner, was by an questions tive came lawyer who A hours. for three again questioned was On Sun- admission. him refused see was to the prison him. to see permitted father however, Eikes’ day, of two questioning Tuesday, after following confessions Both time. a second he confessed hours, half at his trial. in evidence were admitted That reversal conviction. Fikes’ reversed This Court only Culombe’s, as showed, does a record was on friendly denial of no total interrogation and intermittent does also, as It prisoner. showed communication atmosphere of commu- background record, present violence. lynch threat appreciable but no nity outrage Particularly significant, Fikes, like Culombe, was sus- pected only not of one, but of a number of offenses under investigation. Fikes, concededly, was removed to a prison located at a considerable home, distance from his as Culombe was not. is a This factor to be considered. But Fikes that removal was purportedly not —and unconvincingly justified by concern for prisoner’s — safety, compare Texas, Ward v. U. S. and was as .not, such, a predominant element our decision. findWe present case is not less strong for reversal than Fikes v. Alabama. certainly Culombe — not a stronger man than apparently Fikes —was never informed of his constitutional rights, as was Fikes. Nev- ertheless, expressly told police that he wanted counsel, as Fikes not, did request and his inwas effect frustrated. We are told that this was because Culombe did not know the any particular name of attorney and the police regard do not an appropriate as practice for them to suggest attorneys’ names prisoners. However laudable this policy may be in general run of things, it manifests an excess of police delicacy when a totally illiterate man, detained headquarters sus- pected many serious felonies, obviously lawyer needs a and asks for In any one. event, every county in Con- necticut public there is a defender.92

Moreover, subjected Culombe was pressures other brought to bear By on Fikes. Lieutenant Rome’s arrange- ment, Mrs. permitted Culombe was asked —to —indeed confront her husband and him tell to confess. Culombe’s thirteen-year-old daughter was called upon pres- ence to recount incriminating circumstances. This may fall short of the chicanery crude of employing per- sons intimate with an accused, play on his emotions, Stat., 1949, Conn. Gen. now Stat., 1958, Conn. Gen. § 54-80. § York, 360 U. S. v. New Spano

that was involved cir- the other with all of appears, conjunction But it Rome, the effect that precisely had have cumstances, to way of “it is another admission, calculated: by his own confession.” getting a this. Culombe was case, then, in this appears What controlled carefully in the police held by taken days than four custody for more police of environment ques- time he was During that before he confessed. affair— Kurp’s about every questioned day tioned — his check merely not to the avowed intention, and with him, charge to was cause whether story to ascertain there was obtainable. if confession a confession a to obtain but this end. employed to fit were All means found to remain silent. right he had a told that was not Culombe lawyer, he that Although said wanted get to help he needed give him attempt no made magistrate him before bringing one.94 Instead finding regard, the duly account, in this into have taken We by the “Nothing said or done was Superior Court: the Connecticut part anxiety on the to cause or the children police to Mrs. Culombe influence power, or will or his or reduce resistance of Culombe Culombe, it is what to Mrs. was done him to confess.” Whatever significant. To the daughter, that is her, her and with was done with mean think it cannot —to finding we be read —as that this can extent his reduced family fact use made Culombe’s that no was Thomp support in evidence. finding resistance, would such a lack testimony Louisville, is the uncontroverted S. 199. It son 362 U. visit upset his wife’s Paige that Culombe of both Rome and choked thereafter Tuesday night, Paige testified that Culombe up or sobbed. request for a repeated ignore never that Culombe do not We time, its frustration at Saturday night. In lawyer view after Tuesday morn told him on Lieutenant surprising. Rome this is not at court —a to consult counsel ing have a chance that he would good. promise was not made wife, at home times saw his that Culombe several It is also true request that he did Headquarters, and that and at State Police as promptness, requires, reasonable Connecticut law be duly presented grave for the crimes of which he was suspected (and fact for which he had been arrested felony-arrest under the statute), he was taken before New Britain Police Court on palpable the ruse of a breach- of-the-peace charge give concocted to time to pursue investigation. their This device is admitted. It had a two-fold effect. First, kept Culombe in police any hands protections without of the that a proper magis- trate’s hearing would have assured him. Certainly, had brought he been it charged before with murder instead insignificant of an misdemeanor, no court would have failed to warn his rights Culombe of and arrange for appointment of counsel.95 Second, every circumstance of procedure Police Court’s was, itself, potentially intimidating. Culombe had been morning told that that attorney she stressing secure an for him. Under the circumstances meetings, thought of these hardly such reserve of can been have expected. explanation Culombe’s own for his failure to make this purpose begin with .... suspected, were said, at 225: cerning even know what testimony, compel: “I didn’t ask request of his In Rex v. prisoner that offense of eliciting wife is that who had been Dick, held inadmissible day How could information about the murder of ^[1947] it is half the time.” (or not at which 2 D. L. R. charged you, as all), her. with all this involuntary. circumstances, and then I didn’t even think of vagrancy, certain statements pressure questioned Robertson, even without his cautioned con which ? You don’t with the C. J. she made it, was 0., .“. .It seems to me process to be an abuse the' criminal purely law to charge use the trifling formal upon offence which there is no real proceed, intention to putting person as a cover for charged arrest, under obtaining and person from that incriminating statements, not in charge relation to the laid subject and made the caution, of a but in relation to a altogether more serious and different trifling offence: ... It is long-established with the maxim nemo seipsum accusare, tenetur and has more than appearance— the mere but, in the intended result it has at times the effect—of a trial police in charge camera before even the has been laid.” be in a of law would court presented be he would into a Instead, he was led counsel. able to consult ever and, without corner, in a room, penned crowded par- a chance or given the bench brought before being Culombe of. disposed his case was any way, ticipate presumably before of crimes convicted had been done. regularly justice inway which of the ignorant not believe experience impact of deny the It would from mind drew limited even impression hear not even did a court which before appearance tool a mere appeared have may well a court which him, intimidating. police, was in the hands Police, the State arrangement evening, by That same Headquarters appeared daughter wife Culombe’s in his cell. sobbing him left the interview Britain of the New the mittimus although morning, next the Hartford to Culombe committed had Police Court “bor- law, due course released Jail until There resumed. questioning and later him, rowed” Paige For this time. at purpose doubt of its be can no was Culombe to know —that he ever was then “knew” —if lying stop to by telling Culombe opened Paige guilty.96 Paige Sergeant on testimony by following basis On the Wednesday’s ques regard cross-examination, be difficult it would effort to pile-driving a other tioning anything as than of Culombe lips: from his own force his conviction Well, I started say A. that? long he “Q. did continue How just while afterwards a short one-thirty it was and talking at to him on it and crimes different paper with all the piece of I that took same repeated the and Murphy came in questions. him these asked that, past three by half the barracks were out thing we afternoon. he want up saying didn’t long keep that did he “Q. Well, how — question and him a Everytime ask we would it? A. to talk about talk say he didn’t want he would there if he was him ask it. about say

and to instead that he did not want to answer. But when Culombe said that answer, he did not want Murphy repeated Detective took over and the same questions Paige that had asked.

It is Wednesday clear that this man’s will was broken afternoon. It is no less clear that his will was broken Wednesday night after when, several hours a car with four policemen, two interviews his and his wife apparently ill him in child, inquiries further made of presence of the Commissioner, Police four-and-a- half-hour session left him (by police testimony) which “tired,” agreed composition to the of a statement that was not even cast in his own words. We do not overlook the fact that Culombe told his at apartment wife their he wanted to cleanse his conscience and make a clean breast of things. This item, context, the total does significance overbalance the of all else, particularly since it day was wife who the before, request

“Q. long period give How of time did that take to that answer? A. What answer?

“Q. ‘I quarters don't want to talk about it’? A. Three of an hour. “Q. doing denying And he had been in addition to it for days up point, Well, to that denial, hadn’t he? A. that wasn’t a McDonough. Mr.

“Q. Well, nothing them, he said he had to do with didn’t he? No, A. he said it,’ rather than lie—he said ‘I don’t want to talk about telling me that he was involved in the crimes.

“Q. your That was conclusion? A. That was the conclusion between us.

“Q. any thing He you just never said such that is said —that a yours you assuming? conclusion of is what are A. That —that what I knew. “Q. you That is what knew he' was involved in—he didn’t tell you any he was involved in of those crimes? A. But I knew that actually saying yes. was the answer without his “Q. you assumption Isn’t that an drew? A. That the was knowl- edge I received from his acts.

“Q. you That is what drew? A. Yes.” Neither to confess.97 him asked Rome, had Lieutenant Wednesday-midnight the nor Wednesday-afternoon the he con- Culombe, against proved may be statement Constitution. the consistently with use, by their victed VII. crime- of problems of the must be one as

Regardful the reach does not one States, the confronting detection such of the case In easy decision. an as here result of the trails killings, Kurp’s the as crimes unwitnessed of capacities imaginative most challenge the detection the else is little there Often officers. law enforcement indispensable anas suspects interrogate do than can interrogation when But investigation. criminal part of purpose, a such continued, with long is so prisoner aof proceed- make the whole as to circumstances, under such unwilling extorting an for instrument an effective ing use the precludes process guilt, of due admission system, our accusatorial Under obtained. thus confession its use- whatever interrogation, exploitation an such trial. judicial substitute permissible not a fulness, is Reversed. concurring. Warren, Justice Chief Mr. deciding Court, in the custom been has not

It and ab- lengthy to write it, before come cases which pre- neither are which questions upon dissertations stract Thursday, when on also, fact that weight, small accord We murder, told the he Court for Superior presented in was Culombe police and cooperate with he judge that wanted presiding course, if Culombe’s custody. Of their into willing be released abused physically had been that he were sole claim coercion ground might part his on Headquarters, such behavior Police State brutality not credible. were assertions inference reasonable we sustain which complains, and he pressures of But “coop willingness to nothing his sort, and subtler him, of a are incon signed series of confessions—is day after erate” —on resistance. pressures broke those conclusion with the sistent

sented the record nor necessary to a proper disposition raised. The opinion issues which announces the judgment of the Court in the instant departed has case from this custom and inis advisory nature an for it opinion, attempts to resolve with finality many problems difficult which are at best only tangentially involved here. opinion unquestionably written with the intention of clarifying problems these and of es tablishing a principles set of which easily could be applied in any coerced-confession situation. However, isit doubt ful that result, such will be the for while three members of the Court agree general to the principles enunciated by the opinion, they principles construe those as requiring a result in this exactly case opposite from that reached by the author of the opinion. being This true, cannot be assumed the lower courts and law enforce agencies ment will receive guidance better from the trea tise for which this case seems to provided have a vehicle. On an I abstract find level, myself in agreement with some portions of opinion in disagreement with other portions. However, I prefer would not to write on many of the difficult questions which opinion discusses until the facts particular of a case make such writing necessary. In my view, the reasons which have compelled the Court to develop the law on-a case-by-case approach, to declare legal principles only in the context specific factual situ ations, and to avoid expounding more than is necessary for the given decision of a case are persuasive. See Ala bama State Federation Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450, 461-462, and cases cited; Poe v. Ullman, ante, p. I see no reason for making an exception in case, and I am therefore join unable to the opinion announces the judgment of the Court. I Accordingly, join the separate concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan. Black Mr. Justice with whom Douglas,

Mr. Justice concurring. agrees, Brennan Brother my As simple one. case a find this

I concern- decisions many of our is controlled states, it also controlled It is obtained. unlawfully ing confessions upon Court urged have of us some principle California, v. including Crooker cases, prior in several v. Ashdown opinion); (dissenting 433, 441 357 S.U. Cicenia opinion); (dissenting 431 426, Utah, S. 357 U. Spano opinion); (dissenting 511 504, S.U. Lagay, opinion).1 (concurring York, S. 360 U. v. New rich or any accused—whether principle That talking lawyer before a to consult right poor—has lawyer for a request if he makes police; with the of Counsel Assistance “the he is denied refused, and it is and Fourteenth the Sixth guaranteed by defence” Amendments. Saturday on a petitioner first on

The descended inwas the latest —he night By ten that afternoon. —at That attorney. request to see an He asked “custody.” of Officer testimony aside. callously turned in the case: issue exposes critical Rome a hadn't seen Culombe Monday night until “Q. Up No, A. sir. had lawyer, he? hadn’t he? lawyer, a asked to He had see

“Q. “A. Yes, sir. lawyer a he could see him that

“Q. Didn’t tell you him? him see to let ready you got good when sir. No, “A. did he see lawyer a to see

“Q. Well, when asked No, A. sir. lawyer? a Groban, S. Oliver, 257; In re 352 U. re S. 333 U. Cf. In Baker, Anonymous S. U.

(dissenting opinion); (dissenting opinion). telephone to call go him to to a

“Q. you allow Did right there. telephone a lawyer? A. There was attorney to call. the name of an He didn’t have Hartford large are a number of “Q. Well, there telephone directory. names the Hartford lawyers’ sir. Yes, “A. directory to him the use of the

“Q. you Did offer lawyer to call? find out the name of that he couldn’t read. “A. were told We “Q. you told that he couldn’t read? Oh, were “A. Yes, sir.

“Q. you told that? A. He did. Who “Q. I Well, then, question before asked the here you in the had courtroom, information that he couldn’t read? I

“A. After talked with him. “Q. telephone a So, therefore, directory would have been of you no use to him? That is what mean by the answer? A. If what he told me was the truth, yes, sir.

“Q. you Did tell him that gotten he could have in touch with Mr. Cosgrove, the Public Defender for this court?

“A. I make it my business any never to mention attorneys. up It is to them to mention their attorney.

“Q. This man inwas the hands of the police on a serious investigation. He said that he wanted a lawyer you did nothing help I him? A. told him he could have a if lawyer he told me who he wanted me to call.

“Q. Did you tell him Yes, that? A. sir. “Q. Didn’t Culombe tell you on Monday night, 'If that is the way you operate I up here want get in touch with a lawyer,’ and you replied, will ‘We at you get right time, let touch with one then.’ until

“A. No, sir.

“Q. lawyer? But talk A. Yes, there was about sir.” mentally

Petitioner is illiterate and defective —a moron six in the third spent years grade or an imbecile. He left He has twice been age school of sixteen. state institutions for the feeble-minded. did an attorney days

He not see until six after he was first arrested and after he had confessed to the him police. police questioned all this time the During produced until their the confession on which questioning present conviction is based. It if guarantee is said that we enforced the of counsel allowing legal is to obtain advice person, arrested, who talking police, effectively pre- before with the we “would California, supra, police questioning” (Crooker clude 441) a man- police and “would constrict state activities in many might impair ability ner that instances their Lagay, supra, solve difficult eases.” It is Cicenia said “any lawyer suspect worth his salt will tell the no uncertain terms to make no statement under Indiana, any 49, 57, circumstances.” Watts v. S.U. attorney In an (concurring opinion). words, other that likely client, clearly unequivocally, to his and inform in compelled any . . shall criminal case person “No . be in Fifth himself,” provided a as the against to be witness Amendment. This is the “evil” to be feared from contact lawyer. a his police suspect between and indispensable the is an Interrogation people by police no right But there is aspect investigations. of criminal any by more than the interrogate police to the— is privilege against courts —when the self-incrimination place set in its Knowing this, police up invoked. the have a administrative detention that has no consti- system of incommunicado, a detention It is justification.

tutional Ohio, 332 Haley v. See oppression. breeds system petitioner this illiterate case present In the S.U. England afforded protection the modicum given not may made that statements is warned prisoner a where enjoined are the where him2 and against used be to cross- nor even prisoner at away a hammer not except voluntary statement a makes him he when examine Prose- The Devlin, Criminal See ambiguities. up to clear cases The flow of 137-141. England (1958), pp. cution is often incommunicado that detention here shows coming arrival of brutality. The illegality and accompanied practices. proscribed against these specific a attorney is an wealthy prominent or of a a If accused were son any doubt can be lawyer, there demanded person, and petitioner heeded? But been have request would that lowly environment. from a He comes status. has no social the before helplessness His family is his ally. No class or counsel” hand of guiding “the he is without police when lack the 69) emphasizes S. Alabama, 287 U. (Powell First, things. there is expresses two “The of caution form secondly, obliged there to talk: the accused reminder that says be taken down talk, he will warning that, what if he does is the lawyer’s point From writing may given in evidence. be or Just as an accused obvious. both statements of view are liberty always police are obliged talk, so the suspect is never says give it in evidence. suspect or down an accused to take what speak, declara is, so is that significance of the caution The real longer they no are By police announce it the tion of war. they questioning as man are representing to the themselves assist; they ought are the inquirer good citizen whom the neutral help moral, legal to further or right, without prosecution are reproach' guilty, need thereafter man, or accused; no innocent from they just told him have keeping silent, for is what himself any these three charge, the caution, may do. arrest — suspect has begun and that have things that hostilities show Devlin, Prosecution The Criminal formally the accused.” become (1958), pp. 36-37. England

641 of equal protection inherent the dwarfed and twisted construction given we have guarantee constitutional of assistance of counsel. Culver, Cf. McNeal 109, 117 U. S. (concurring opinion). system

The police of interrogation under secret deten- falls tion heaviest on the weak and illiterate —the least articulate segments of society. our See American Civil Liberties Union Secret Report, Detention the Chicago (1959), pp. Police 19-21. indigent The languishes who in jail for want of bail, Bandy States, v. United cf. S. Ct. (memorandum or opinion), the member of a minority group without status or power is the one who suffers most when we leave the constitutional right counsel to the discretion police. of the right That can only protected be aby guarantee broad of counsel that applies across the board to rich and poor alike. See Reck Pate, ante, p. (concurring opinion).

I believe that petitioner’s the denial of request that he given be right of counsel was a violation of his con- rights. stitutional I therefore concur in judgment the Court reversing the conviction.

Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice join, concurring Black the result.

It my view that the facts in Part stated V opinion Brother my require the con- Frankfurter charged “Police officers are impartial the fair and adminis Yet, many of the law. localities, sharp tration there are and shock ing contrasts in the groups of ‘law’ kind administered to different [P]eople lacking . . . special may citizens. ‘pull’ status or be pushed around, roughed up, vague arrested on charges, and even false generally and treated especially as second-class citizens. This is true high of dwellers in slum areas with crime rates —and even more poverty-ridden especially Negroes minority groups— and other where slight raids on homes are tenement sometimes made on suspicion without Deutsch, of search benefit warrants.” Cops (1955), p. Trouble with Wednesday confessions alone the all and not

elusion that our and that under petitioner, from the coerced were See, him. against in evidence is admissible cases none there cited. Alabama, and cases S. Fikes U. g., e. whom Mr. Justice Clark Harlan, Mr. Justice dissenting. join, Mr. Justice Whittaker written has my Brother Frankfurter I to what agree principles governing general delineation investigation of, or under suspected those interrogation of as crime, and the commission of with, in connection of state federal review guide judicial should factors which this upon however, I this field. think, action usually found hallmarks contains few of the record, which find such considerations cases, in “coerced confession” judgment. of this reflection affirmance proper their as medical and other evidence regard due to the With I am mentality, history and subnormal petitioner’s constitutionally impermis- that was unable to consider petitioner’s to conclude that “Wednes- sible for the State choice product deliberate day” confessions were a clean by making ameliorate his fate part try on his consequence improper things, and not the breast of con- petitioner’s supplemental police activity. me, To as Saturday night, depicted following fession on spontaneity, indicia all the by the record bears contrary view. against Court’s especially persuasive infirmity that I find no constitutional I also add should courts in evalu- in the standards used Connecticut petitioner’s confessions. Cf. ating voluntariness Richmond, 365 Rogers v. U. S.

I would affirm.

Case Details

Case Name: Culombe v. Connecticut

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jun 19, 1961

Citation: 367 U.S. 568

Docket Number: 161

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS