Denzel Milton Lee v. United States

HUTCHESON, Before BROWN Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge. WISDOM, Circuit This case of an ac- involves interroga- during police cused to counsel tion. appeals forma

pauperis conviction from a Drugs Import Federal Narcotic Ex-& Act, port conspiracy 21 U.S.C. § import and distribute The de- heroin. fendant, (Buddy) Denzel al- Lee was leged to have been a member nar- of a ring, operating in the cotics Dallas-Fort obtaining area, Worth which was heroin smuggled from Korea United Army Sergeant Billy States J. Mont- gomery. Montgomery admitted that Inchon, Korea, mailed heroin from John Rule. Both Rule Lee were ac- receiving cused of the heroin for distri- defendants, bution to two other John who, White, turn, N. Shelton H. Negro sold it to addicts in Fort Worth. charged specifically Lee was sale July, of heroin to Shelton at Dallas 1961, and two to Shelton at Corsi- sales November, Lee, Rule, cana Shelton, White, Montgomery were brought trial as co-defendants. Mont- gomery pleaded guilty. The four men were convicted sentenced to ranging eight years. terms to ten largely upon The convictions were based testimony of two addicts who were alleged to have been the defendants’ co- conspirators. appellant contends that con- part hearsay

viction rests state- co-conspirator ments of a made out of presence. He contends that the also ing. jury objection over At instruct did not knowledge illegally imported nar- the defendant’s one of knowledge conspiracy form testified narrative oral to Lee’s cotics and import “admissions”. essential to narcotics were such was elements the of crime with objection admissibility to the of charged. contentions. These are serious agent’s special testimony predi- the however, them, We because do discuss upon cated the Fifth Amend- and Sixth the error of we our on the base decision supervisory power ments and the the of excluding testi- in the trial federal courts of over the administration investiga- mony special government of a justice federal criminal Mc- under the relating alleged the tor of admissions Nabb-Mallory doctrine.1 during police parte in- an ex difficulty pre this case The basic terrogation. conflict the between from sents arises opinion, the sa- purposes of this For interrogation society’s police interest in undisputed. Two and are few lient facts protec suspected and of criminals secretly agents in- special Government constitutional tion of an individual’s They prison terrogated cell. Lee in during interrogation. rights prior without appeared at cell door among agreement general crimi There is previously indicted. Lee had notice. interrogation nologists of criminal that during the or no counsel before He had ingredient necessary of is a offenders not record did questioning. The s.2 police writ- There also doubt them to activitie reduce or statements Lee’s judicial begins (e. g., pre States, process 318 U.S. as the 1. United McNabb Mallory 819; etc.) liminary hearing, indictment, al 87 L.Ed. S.Ct. 63 years though case law over the v. United right that counsel arises 1479. effect S.Ct. adjudicates only proceeding guilt in innocence; words, Inbau, of other it tbe lead- or arises Fred E. 2. Professor itself, pre-trial posi- ing bis and in tbe field states the hearing. authorities my separate points: judgment In of three ... in tbe form tion Many right cases, in- of even when counsel at time or criminal very judicial proc by police qualified vestigated of de- start test even at the ess, only provided capable partments, and be accorded of solution should are defendants, prac indigent insofar as confession all of an admission or means upon ticable, regardless guilty basis of whether case individual or tbe tbe ques- capital non-capital offense, from tbe or obtained involves of information only suspects. tioning or if it amounts to misdea of criminal even object except, offenders, of What I do to is an meanor. exten 2. Criminal arrestees, indigent course, caught those commission sion of the or ordinarily non-indigent, prior ju not admit their crimes will start their guilt constitutionally process. questioned is not dicial required, It unless under conditions practical period privacy, perhaps considerations will and for a sev- extension, par not tolerate such an eral hours. ticularly supple dealing offenders, if the extension is criminal consequently of court would mented rule nul also with criminal sus- and pects lify, process, may actually innocent, as a violation due who during period necessity employ interrogator confession obtained police must of less ap- detention before the start of the methods than are considered refined Inbau, judicial process.” ordinary, propriate Police Interro for the transaction of gation Necessity everyday Practical Police affairs between law-abid- —A Individual Power and Freedom 147-149- citizens. (Ed.Sowle.1962). However, Inbau, Inbau, also See Professor one of the Interrogations strongest interroga- Restrictions in the Law of advocates suspects Confessions, 52 N.Y.U.L.Rev. writes: “That an ac- tion Inbau, (1957) ; person The Confession entitled counsel cused at the Dilemma Supreme proposition Court, United States time of trial is a that should Hearings unchallenged. It See must stand also Ill.L.Rev. Be No. 2 be conceded fore Subcommittee of the House just Judiciary should be considered Committee on H.R. exist soon interrogation defend er process that a was a violation due secrecy, privacy, is ant in least in State to refuse to allow an accused attorney present during more effective than have his interrogation. lawyer. presence California, But of the defendant’s Crooker v. states, the Sixth Amendment “In all 357 U.S. L.Ed. prosecutions, shall 2d criminal the accused of the Court held * * * enjoy that denial of counsel was one fac determining legality tor Counsel Assistance of defence”. confession Court has construed obtained the interro gation Amendment to mean that federal and did not in render the itself right involuntary, courts a defendant confession has absolute the de unless counsel, provided prejudiced thereby to and counsel must be fendant “is so toas employ counsel, subsequent infect unable defendants an ab with right competently unless telligently in sence of ‘that fundamental fairness es ” Zerbst, very justice.’ concept waived. Johnson v. sential 1938, 458, 1019, 439, 304 1292, U.S. 58 82 L. 11, S.Ct. at U.S. n. at S.Ct. Moreover, Supreme Ed. 1461. the right Court 2 Douglas, Justice dis senting opinion now that this funda holds in an concurred in process mental to a fair trial and to due Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black obligatory upon Brennan, of law that it is made took the view that the de the States process: Fourteenth Amend fendant was denied due Wainwright, 1963, ment. Gideon v. “The mischief and abuse the third 335, 792, U.S. 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 799. degree long will continue as as an ac right cused be denied speaks Amendment of “As- The Sixth pe counsel at this the most critical his defence”. of Counsel for sistance Giving riod of the ordeal. For what takes a narrow clause construc- place in might secret tion, confines be construed police may station be begin more critical trial. Mr. at time of place than what takes Sutherland, the trial. in the Seottsboro Justice * * * That same Cases, repudiated coun [to such narrow view: sel requires at the guiding- trial] should extend to the “[A defendant] * * * pretrial stage. every step pro- de counsel at hand expressed of our mands civilization ceedings against him”. Powell Ala- require the Due Process 45, 69, Clause bama, 1932, 55, that the accused who wants counsel L.Ed. 158. should have one at time after passed Supreme Court has di- the moment of arrest.” 357 U.S. question rectly at issue as it is 433, 444-448, 1294-1296, 78 S.Ct. presented in the case before us. L.Ed.2d 1448. States, 1957, Mallory v. United 354 U.S. 1 L.Ed.2d college 77 S.Ct. how- In Crooker the accused was a ever, training the Court stated that one accused educated man with law school not to taken be head- keep of crime who knew of his silent. quarters prosecution companion case, in order for LaGay, In a Cicenia damaging statements, obtain but 357 U.S. 2 L. arraigned promptly, at which time he Ed.2d the accused did not have the fully legal apprised intelligence obtain and be nor education of Crook- rights. of his In two decisions lawyer involv- and, er but he had consulted his tried State presumably, rights. defendants courts the was advised of his dealt with the Court has holding wheth- Cicenia that, followed Crooker Sess., Cong., Judiciary, 1st ser.

78th at 6-7 the House Committee on the Hearings Special (1944); Cong., Sess., Before 85th 2d ser. Study Subcommittee Decisions of the the United States Nevertheless, pains circumstances, took Warren confession ob Justice in the point that: out tained accused, was refusal of counsel to mere “The not therefore were necessarily deprivation due crime, trying ly or even solve Harlan, process. However, Justice Compare suspect. Crook- absolve a majority, the Mc under stated that supra, er v. California [US] doctrine, a federal “Were this Nabb They LaGay, supra. Cicenia v. [US] difficulty prosecution would little we primarily were rather concerned dealing our with occurred what securing de statement from general supervisory power ad over the convict fendant could justice federal in the ministration of undeviating him. The intent of the 508-509, 78 S.Ct. courts.” 357 U.S. at officers to petitioner extract confession 1448. Justices 2 L.Ed.2d patent. is therefore When Douglas Chief Justice and Black and shown, such an intent is this Court they had Warren dissented in Cicenia as held that the obtained has confession in Crooker. must be the most examined with scrutiny, careful and has reversed a implying, if as can be read Crooker compelling conviction facts less suspect “every in hold, that it does York, than these. v. Malinski New his custody not know of police who does 401, 781, 89 L.Ed. [65 U.S. questions has right police not to answer 324, 360 U.S. at 79 S.Ct. at 1029].” right a law talk to the constitutional 1207, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265. interrogated. The yer he can be before by joined against Douglas, the con concurring, presumption waiver of Justice emphasized Brennan, pro Black and right Justices Crooker cast stitutional interrogation significance the the of request does after one who tection around indictment: ask for a law failure counsel since his argu not with sus- “But here we deal a yer may defendant’s buttress pect who with a man has been rights.” but know he did not ment that charged formally crime. with a Interrogation, in Police Weisberg, Police question indict- whether after 153, 178 Freedom Individual Power and the trial the ment before Gov- Rhay, 1962). (Ed. Griffith Sowle. interrogate ernment can the accused 1961, 711, den’d Cir., cert. 282 F.2d when he asked for his law- secret 5 L.Ed.2d 81 S.Ct. U.S. request yer de- and when his was reading of adopted Crooker. * * * Depriving per- a nied. impor charged formally son, crime, have an and Cicenia a with Crooker York, Spano during period prior New counsel relation tant damaging 3 L. more trial be than Spano, In the instant counsel denial of Ed.2d case, * * * interrogated pris officers This is a case itself. accused, in the absence indictment an who is scheduled to be oner after surrendering by jury, being to the Before tried counsel. charge murder, Spano way by preliminary had tried in on a kangaroo attorney police. engaged who had cautioned This is an whereby questions. procedure police pro- He no was answer him Attorney’s officeand the vital District duce evidence in form to the taken subjected interroga official a confession “massive which useful or straight eight necessary hours until he to obtain a conviction. tion” for deny They him Warren for the in effect Justice effective Chief confessed. by representation reach counsel. This did flagrant during interroga right seems to me to be viola- principle found that tion announced tion, because Alabama, supra, [US] coercion. Powell v. was obtained that confession recognition right. right See Jus of counsel extends opinion, tice Harlan’s concurred preparation as well as to Clark, alia, Justice inter in Cicenia. Professor Cha- the trial As itself. said, person ‘A accused of fee once upon Two recent cases have touched lawyer after crime needs time to counsel accrues. probably more than his arrest Feguer States, Cir., v. United Chafee, other time.’ Documents 302 F.2d con defendant Rights, Pam- Human Fundamental he made tended that certain statements phlet p. (1951-1952), 541. When were because inadmissible evidence deprived after he is of that they investigating officers were made to trial, may indictment and before lawyer in an repre- indeed be denied effective present. was not The court observed sentation counsel at the Sixth “affords Amendment legal stage advice when aid and defense,” comfort for “As because help would him.” 360 U.S. at “only applies sistance of Counsel” 3 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. at charged by formally in Doug- Stewart, joined by Justice Justices Feguer’s dictment or information”. concurring Brennan, las and also wrote statements all were made indict before regarded opinion. He indictment as ment. Massiah v. United start the trial: Cir., 1962, 307 F.2d Bureau emphasized Narcotics testified “Let it outset had installed a in transmitter this is not a where the ease former’s monitored questioning automobile and suspect had were investigating the with a co- the defendant’s course an un- conversations * * * by defendant who had been the coached solved crime. When the agents. majority pointed petitioner A of the Court the surrendered New custody in out that the defendant was not York authorities he under in- was being “interrogated” degree that while and dictment first murder. * * * “interrogation” by guaran- was a co-defendant. Our Constitution rejected tees The Court therefore the de the assistance of counsel to a man ly fendant’s contention that the evidence an for his in life order- Judge Hays, was courtroom, presided by inadmissible. dis over light judge, senting, Spano open in public, found that pro- to the “ onsidering procedural that a stricter stand [c] tected all the safe- guards imposed by Surely ard of conduct is federal of the law. a Con- promises stitution courts federal law enforcement of that much ficials”, counsel was violated. vouchsafe no to the less same “Certainly, midnight man inquisition if rule is to such have efficacy apply squad it must police indirect and room aof station.” interrogations surreptitious 327, 360 1209, U.S. at as well 79 3 jailhouse.” L.Ed.2d 1265. conducted in those 307 F.2d 72. In view of Justice Warren’s dissent in concurring Spano, York, Crooker Cicenia and the which arose in New opinions Black, Douglas, requested of Justices had defendant and had Brennan, Spano, attorney. Stewart it now been refused access his appears justices People Biasi, 1960, 544, v. Di N.Y.2d recognize Supreme 21, 825, of the Court the con 200 166 N.E.2d N.Y.S.2d during during police police defendant, interrogation, stitutional interrogation to counsel involving prosecu request attorney in cases did not his nor did he appears any questions tions It also State. refuse to answer because attorney prosecutions present. in federal the McNabb-Mal was not He made lory promotes doctrine the likelihood of “confession” the homicide for being receptive Court’s which he indicted but did admit was “misunderstanding” later, days indictment. Fifteen he had to his special prosecution. of Nar- At of the Bureau victim and fled two to avoid trial, Dallas cotics went Lee’s cell testified officer County Basing jail purpose of inter- its defendant’s oral admissions. rogating Judging concurring him. fifteen opinion decision from the on the day delay, urgency requir- Spano, Appeals, York there was no Court of New ing interrogation reaching opposite before obtained to that Lee result op- 1958, notice, People Spano, reached N. counsel. Lee had no Without portunity 793, to consult counsel before Y.2d 150 N.E.2d N.Y.S.2d during questioning. 3 or The inter- rev’d 360 U.S. rogation reporter was secret. No was held that the admission present. tape used. of evidence terrogation in No recorder was obtained from the agents, At ob- over in the ab the defendant jections sence of of Lee’s testified counsel after indictment was process. violation Lee’s oral due York admissions. The New Court has Biasi two re followed Di extent This case illustrates cases, People cent N. v.Y. of State of may be indicted defendant which an N. Waterman, N.Y.2d questioned prejudiced after he is when People 175 N.E.2d Y.S.2d attorney. of an indictment in the absence Meyer, York v. New of State begin with, questioning To N.E. N.Y.S.2d N.Y.2d interrogation suspect; aof rec In each decision 2d 103. proseeutory make an indicted device to ognized an accused’s absolute ex- incriminate himself. The in nature of the admissions can istence or : dictment To be contested the defendant. finding indictment “Since presumably so, relinquish do he would be forced to People imports that the against privilege self-incrimination. legally evidence of sufficient given lati- Police must be considerable guilt the crime the defendant’s suspects questioning and wit- tude charged 251), (Code Crim.Pro. § being made to an effort nesses when is appropriate police in of necessities probable determine whether there is vestigation crime, even ‘to solve or has that a crime been cause to believe urged suspect’ cannot be to absolve a vastly committed. But the situation is any subsequent justification for as suspect has formal- different after a been (Ci questioning the defendant. of urgency ly indicted for a crime. The omitted.) Any inter tation secret power disappears. The whole of the rogation defendant, of the against is im- directed Government finding indictment, after the individual, preparations prisoned are as protection afforded without judge prosecution made for his before counsel, presence of contravenes jury. pro- In these circumstances fairness in the the basic dictates of safeguards attach, must else the cedural conduct of criminal causes and the safeguards which we think of as essen- rights persons of fundamental charged to a fair trial become a mere for- tial People of crime.” mality. Waterman, York State of New 70, 74-75,

N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d attorney present Had an been it is N.E .2d 447-448 likely salt,” if his he were “worth put it, We return now to facts in the Jackson would case Justice have January us. Lee “in before was arrested the defendant uncertain told no terms police.” pursuant on a no warrant issued make statement [the] may Indiana, 1949, suspicion “If arrest on Watts v. 338 U.S. the State 1347, 1358, interrogate counsel, 93 L.Ed. without there is 1801. Con- largely negates tinuing, denying the fact it Justice Jackson observed: may salt, parte interrogations fully we are Even if not defendants worth of prisoner not insisted that conducted coun- be sure that he would have when a has legal Presumably, in the sel. have be forbid admission would ethics signed statement, Attorney or form of a United States written or Government agent approved by bypass lawyer of record or a a defend- accused of enough by a ant some kind made and attested fortunate the means- engage reporter. proper have been is ethic- There would counsel. This lawyers. accuracy assurance to' some But here effect is agent’s advantage reputedly prosecution ad recital Lee allow the of what to take indigent Wong prisoner mitted. Sun v. United See without imperiling rights L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. his constitutional subjecting questioning 2d 441. Here a narrative we have him to intended accuracy conclusory statements, him, recognizing oral convict while an ac- memory dependent upon inquisition which is cused’s freedom from secret inquisitor. if practice he can conscience It has afford counsel. This questioning point carries well said: secret against indigent invidious discrimination “No other case comes to mind defendants. which an administrative official permitted discretionary the broad The record not show does power assumed inter- requested whether Lee counsel or together rogator, power interrogators appeared at the time his prevent objective recordation of the opened before He cell door. facts. The absence a record (after being was in a cell re Dallas disputes makes inevitable about Houston) moved from and was not taken and, sometimes, conduct of the day before until the of the trial. prisoner actually about what the has Further, “record” which could secrecy, privacy, said. It requested show whether Lee accounts the absence of a memory interrogation pro- reliable record of interrogator. “But is settled that ceedings in a station. If the where the assistance is a of counsel con prejudicial need for question- some requisite, stitutional fur assumed, privacy be de- request.” depend nished counsel does grounds necessity; fended on se- nley Cochran, 1962, Car crecy cannot be defended on this or 8 L.Ed. ground.” Weisberg, Po- presumption 2d 70. Nor can there abe Interrogation, lice Police Power Zerbst, of waiver counsel. Johnson v. of Freedom, 153, Individual 180 1938, 458, 304 U.S. 58 L. S.Ct. 82 (Ed. 1962). Sowle. request Ed. 1461. failure Lee’s to lawyer, is fail, That not all. The if Govern indeed he did no excuse is secret, oppressiveness procedure ment’s brief that concedes ex for the of a guaranty compel testify, the benefits of the constitutional who cannot him right of assistance of counsel. and also cannot him before? lawyer Any system who has ever been called into Our comes close to the latter any interpretation, a case after his client has ‘told all’ and is defendant safeguards sys- turned evidence he has over to the shielded as no Government, helpless except Anglo-American knows how he of is to tem law against protect his client him.” facts thus concedes to point out, however, disclosed. We must that Jus- suppose strongly regard “I the view one takes will turn tice Jackson felt that right persons reasonably suspected crime, on what one thinks should be the of person against indispensable “Questioning of an accused the State. an instru- right mentality justice.” judgment Is his to have of v. Ashcraft Ten- right nessee, 1944, facts? Or the judgment is it his to have a 322 64 U.S. Query ques- based on such evidence as 88 L.Ed. 1192. as to tioning authorities, persons previously cannot conceal from he of indicted. 778 request.” agent to reasonable time after such

which enables Government Cong. News, & appear prisoner’s 1963 Ad. with- U.S. Code an cell indicted Cong. p. notice, key, 88th and conduct 1 Sess. 132. out turn interrogation of then and there secret Similarly, Rule 5 to be amended surprised prisoner. stipulate shall commissioner “[t]he complaint inform the defendant of federal of the aims of the One against right him, coun- of to retain his exercising supervisory their courts assign- sel, right request his of fed of powers over the administration right ment to have all the justice avoid is “to eral criminal preliminary examination.” U.S. interrogation implications secret evil Cong. Cong. News, Code & Ad. 88th Mallory persons of crime.” accused p. Sess. 114. United 1479. dispute truth No into over principle carried has been This statement, per “A of Professor Chafee’s although are military law, courts-martial lawyer son right accused needs crime and, generally Article III courts probably than more after his arrest speaking, armed services a member of the not be un time.” It would rights the constitutional does have all recognize an ac therefore to reasonable Courts of a civilian. The United States right moment from the cused’s counsel Military Appeals reversed con have certainly accused But an of arrest.5 if person ground sus victions guiding “requires counsel hand of pected dur counsel of crime is entitled against every step proceedings of the interrogation investigatory even an him”, declared against charges before filed ago thirty years over v. Ala Powell military him and before bama, proceedings no later commence Gun counsel accrues. United States than when indicted. We 354; nels, Spano CMR USCMA read Court of as the New York Appeals Spano: Rose, reads USCMA the Constitution United States v. gives a defendant the absolute 24 CMR counsel, starting later after in than importance to counsel ob dictment. The use oral admissions proposed has been reaffirmed interroga during tained a secret Federal amendments Rules prisoner tion of an indicted without sug- Thus, Criminal Procedure. gested incompatible counsel is with a fair so provides that revision of Rule triál as to constitute a violation “Every defendant who is unable to process fortiori, due A we hold clause. entitled, if obtain shall testimony relating to oral state requests, to have counsel as- signed represent him within a ments obtained Human until most not had nothing pleas at have They “The Utah, dence Chafee, 2 cynical appointed trial. is of not the most can’t was time a defendant trial. trial’ ”. immediately Rights, arraigned prosecutor all Documents * escape guilty. * neatly counsel can for * * F.Supp. illustrious Ex ^[*] * them until after and had entered their the noose. There is parte Sullivan, By Indeed, tied saying: (1951-1952) One on Fundamental up needs counsel, do time the evi 517-518. for counsel was arrest and ‘Let for delivery imagine D.Ct. them them now. Cf. 5. There McNabb-Mallory 24 Now, 107 U.Pa.L.Rev. Amendment Rothblatt, Rev. subject Criminal 1031-1033 Prompt Assignment, Prearraignment pointment tion, (1960); Allison, Police 3 Utah L.Rev. 224 J.Am.Jud.Soc. 113 Procedure, (1962). The Interrogation, (1959); Note, Note, Right to excellent Right the Federal Rules 286 Interrogation Miasma: A Preliminary See also Rothblatt He (1958); Comment, to treatment Needs Brooklyn to Counsel Dur Yale Counsel Right (1958); Rutgers L.J. a Examina Proposed and Lawyer and L.Rev. Note, Ap L. to & agents tioning. did The McNabb- under are inadmissible them reduce Lee’s or Mallory statement doctrine. writing. trial, ob- over At the remand- judgment and is reversed The jection the defendant’s ed. agents narra- one of the testified then versed and investigator the trial theory, senting). below was tariness, by statute, on which the reversal is though vincing evidence, first time low. claimed below but sions flatly disagree, established on ror sending decision, and never until now advanced for on a counsel before or on previously cell. salient facts are few Two secretly interrogated door without I find HUTCHESON, Circuit Except I, evidence Negro judgment attending the trial dealing testimony “For conspiracy went therefore, the action of theory no court or interrogation”. the defendant myself the case special or indeed on conclusion of that the purposes addicts conviction objection on appeared They particularly with the just an on the by overwhelming and con- rule or authoritative in heroin been indicted. relating of conviction should majority of reversible prior and most erred in “not say: majority, Government back for another trial conspiracy complete and ground theory of this put the court in was made to its offer Fort ordinary conspiracy appellant’s member of it. This special and notice. Lee had vigorously Lee in his on no states forward for was rested. Worth, alleged judgment, named opinion, of its involun- reversible majority that undisputed. disagreement with which Judge He had no government large claimed was to an ex error, not it, the cell supported excluding guilt the case ground, ques- voiding pris- ground dissent admis- be parte scale. that, (dis- prey and are be- re- er- I of the trial shown, reversal has er a where a viction, principles. judges, peals, behalf pelled, tice is show for its ancient landmarks and their stead new ror in criminal tended with quired only neutral late courts and instead of garded doubt settled tive form tween police activities.” terrogation sents fenders With agreement and the constitutional interrogation. appeal must always day majority judges personal interest of the Court of entitled to a “The basic ^[*] statement, confession, or represents appellants, principles as statute but as a for defendant, arises society’s deference, criminal ease law enough theorists reversal protection ais ^[*] been the law that to supposed supervisory powers where the according him. prejudicial to Lee’s personal Among judge, prejudicial error, he is are necessary convicted defendant presumed among invoke and difficulty from longer rights during ^[*] go endeavoring governing reversal, interest and not on suspected criminals and rules that his trial toas at on There who in while such error must be for its and of an oral short, ward appeal personal views of criminal of- -x- strange doctrines error established criminologists judges this case ingredient two-way feelings to be innocent ‘admissions’. introducing conflict be- individual’s this view principles, or admission criminal enlist certain the field of -x- government from a con being com provide, change the such an is wheth support general decisions and er remove pre- street appel -X- carry in- legal part non- jus Ap re re no 1. Benj. Wright, Cf. “The Review, Court Cannot Be Neutral”. F. Tex.Law Vol. 40 No. 5. Declining, therefore, aof is receivable into evidence where to follow gone wpon depends, depends alone, sheep, astray, wheth like have I re- and voluntary reject spectfully unth er it was or was condemn and the views majority meaning personal law2 of ing, and, as mere settled decree- vigorously defendant, can, represented coun as I dis- as I Here choosing, object sent therefrom. sel of his did not own involuntary to the statements or co as

erced, request and no for instructions to jury point. Indeed, was made on this object

the defendant to its ad did not ground, mission this district but the carefully fully, properly and

charged jury on the in

voluntariness. this, clearly and shows The record on in- put decision majority its does HARRIS, minor, Carolyn Eleanor puts forward Instead voluntariness. guardian Harris, Taylor and next her Fed- theory foundation without new Appellants-Intervenors, al., friend, et majority Indeed, as the eral decision. opinion v. Circuit, Eighth shows, the Gibson, and Brenda Linda Sue GIBSON States, F.2d Fequer United v. Gibson, minors, by fa- L. their Thomas Circuit, States in United the Second and friend, L. ther and next Thomas - refused Massiah, F.2d al., individually, Gibson, v. Plaintiffs et opinion Compare court’s Appellees, this hold. to so supra. States, Dailey note United majority, case, Spano cited Education, pub- Glynn County Board case, as it is re- That hold. does so existing body the laws lic sepa- merely Defendanis-Appellees. of several Georgia, al., ported, consists et differing per- presenting opinions rate No. 20871 judges, some of individual views sonal saying Appeals United States saying that, while and some this Fifth Circuit. flatly declined to a whole as court Sept. majority by the hold, claimed as is so expressly Indeed, declared it was here. opinion rendered only court in the opin- separate Spano case in the particular facts dealt ions no at- there was that case general lay rule for tempt down plugs. This here here, never, until now and has gone opinion off after considered gods false or other- this Baal, and I do not knee to bowed wise a court it ever will. At as

believe emphatically rate, condemn and I per- majority’s simply view as

reject the decreeing and, such, alien as sonal generally law circuit completely unauthorized. Dailey 870 at 872 and cases cited. 261 F.2d United

Case Details

Case Name: Denzel Milton Lee v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 23, 1963

Citation: 322 F.2d 770

Docket Number: 19773_1

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.