Haley v. Ohio

HALEY v. OHIO. Argued

No. 51. November January 12, 1948. 1947.Decided Edgar W. Jones argued petitioner. the cause for With him on the brief was E. L. D. Mills. Bruce Mansfield was also of counsel.

D. McLaughlin Deane Rodgers and W. Bernard argued respondent. the cause for With them on the brief was John Rossetti. Douglas announced the Justice

Mr. opinion an Black, Court and Justice Mr. Mr. Rutledge join. and Mr. Justice Justice Murphy, murder in an Ohio court of Petitioner was convicted imprisonment. life degree in the first and sentenced to Appeals The Ohio sustained Court the admission of objection that of conviction over violated the Fourteenth at the trial petitioner’s confession App. Ohio 237. of the Constitution. 79 Amendment Supreme being of the view that no Court, The Ohio presented, dis was question constitutional debatable The is here appeal. 147 St. 340. case missed the Ohio granted writ certiorari which we petition on a for a court ruling had because we doubts whether Florida, v. 309 Chambers squared below could York, and like 401, v. 324 U. S. 227, U. S. Malinski New cases in this Court. midnight on

A robbed near confectionery store was was shot. Karam, owner, and William its 14,1945, October evi- supported some prosecutor’s theory, It was the peti- unnecessary relate, for us to dence which it is others, two Willie boy aged 15, tioner, Negro Parks, aged 17, A1 committed Lowder, aged 16, later-— n Five days lookout. acting as a crime, petitioner ar- was petitioner midnight October around 1945— headquarters. police rested his home and taken at to what testimony as in the contrariety is some There beaten. he was There is evidence transpired. then mother testified so His testified. He took the stand were ex- arrested, which he wore when the clothes brought she later for clean ones changed days two also testified blood-stained. She jail, were torn and he was his arrest days him after five when she first saw contrary police testified bruised and skinned. side the put to one So we testimony. line of on this entire controverted evidence. Taking only undisputed testi- mony (Malinski York, v. New supra, p. 404 and cases cited), we have the following sequence of events. Begin- ning shortly after midnight this 15-year-old lad was questioned by for about five hours. Five or six questioned him in relays of one or two each. During this time no friend or boy counsel of the present. Around a. m.—after shown being alleged confessions of Lowder and boy Parks —the confessed. A confession typed in question and answer form police. At no time was this boy advised of his right but counsel; the written confession started off with the following statement:

“we want to inform you your constitutional rights, the law gives you the right to make this statement or not you see fit. is made with the under- standing that it may be used at a trial in court either for or against you or anyone else involved in this crime with you, your own free will and accord, you are under no force or compulsion duress or promises no are being made to you at this time what- soever. you

“Do still desire to make this statement and tell the truth after had having the above clause read you?

“A. Yes.” He put jail about 6 or 6:30 a. m. on Saturday, the 20th, shortly after the confession was signed. Be- tween then and Tuesday, 23d, he was held incom- municado. A lawyer retained by his mother tried to see him twice but was refused police. admission His mother was not allowed to see him until Thursday, 25th. newspaper But a photographer was allowed to see him and take picture early morning hours of 20th, right after he had confessed. He was not taken before a magistrate and charged formally with crime days after the confession was until the 23d—three signed. the vol- court, preliminary hearing

The trial after a ad- confession, to be untary character allowed it objection in evidence petitioner’s mitted over rights the Fourteenth Amendment. violated his under jury disregard instructed the the confession The court voluntarily he did it found that not make confession free will. and of his finding ruling

But the the trial court do not voluntary of the confession jury on character independent it is our examination which foreclose Tennessee, here. v. U. S. duty to make Ashcraft If the evidence that force undisputed suggests 147-148. confession, was used exact the we will coercion though permit stand, of conviction to even might the confession there have been sufficient without jury. v. New evidence for submission to the Malinski York, supra, p. 404, and cases cited. obtaining think used in

We do not the methods of law squared process can be due commands. the Fourteenth Amendment pause us for careful transpired would make What when, as if a mature involved. And inquiry man were before victim of the law—is here, easy a mere child—an used. the record must be special scrutinizing care us, race. age boy any for a of is a tender and difficult Age 15 judged exacting the more standards He cannot a man cold That would leave maturity. which in his a lad can overawe and overwhelm unimpressed instability great period This early teens. is 15-year-old A produces. of adolescence which the crisis relays of night by dead of through the lad, questioned men Mature ready inquisition. victim the police, is a 5 a. midnight m. possibly might stand the ordeal years lad of we cannot that a tender But believe a police match for the contest. He needs support counsel and if he is not to become the victim fear, panic. first of then of He needs someone on whom presence lean lest the overpowering of the law, as he it, knows him. crush No friend at stood the side 15-year-old this boy as the police, working relays, questioned him hour after hour, from midnight until lawyer dawn. No stood guard to make sure that police went so far and no farther, see to they stopped short point where he became the victim of coercion. No counsel or friend was called during the critical hours of A questioning. photographer was admitted once lad broke and confessed. But a gesture not even getting towards lawyer for him was ever made.

This disregard of the standards decency is under- lined the fact that kept he was incommunicado for days over three during lawyer which the retained to represent him twice tried to see him and twice was refused admission. A photographer was once; admitted at but his closest friend —his mother —was not allowed to see him for over five days after his arrest. It is said that tl/ese events are not germane to the present problem they because happened after the confession was made. But show such a callous attitude to- wards the safeguards respect for ordinary stand- of human ards relationships compels that we with a take grain of salt their present apologia that the five-hour grilling of this boy was conducted a fair dispas- sionate manner. When are so unmindful of these basic standards of public conduct their dealings, their secret treatment of 15-year-old boy behind closed doors in the dead night darkly becomes suspicious.

The age of petitioner, the hours when he grilled, the duration of his quizzing, the fact that he had no friend or counsel to advise him, the callous attitude of

601 us to convince combine rights towards his means from child wrung this was nor man Neither law not sanction. which the should methods stand condemned allowed to child can be process requirements due which flout constitutional law. advised of his con- boy

But we are told that that, signed he the confession before rights stitutional assumes, That confessed. them, he nevertheless knowing counsel, aid of fifteen, without boy that a however, and that that advice appreciation of have a full would of choice. a freedom this record he had the facts of we Moreover, assumptions. indulge those We cannot merely formalize to recitals which any weight give cannot for respect Formulas requirements. constitutional the facts of prevail over cannot safeguards constitutional may not become They them. life which contradict form empty make an practices inquisitorial cloak fought men law for which free process of the due to obtain. died Florida, supra, v. in Chambers we followed

The course Tennessee, v. Texas, U. S. v. White Ashcraft York, must be fol- supra, v. New and Malinski supra, prohibits the Amendment Fourteenth here. The lowed either custody of private, secret using from confessions wringing a device for man or child as them.

Reversed. in reversal joining Frankfurter, Justice Mr. judgment. v. Brown cases, beginning

In a series recent aside con- has set 278, the Court U. S. Mississippi, 297 were because from State courts coming here victions under circumstances admitted on confessions based exacted process” “due requirements offended If from the States the Fourteenth Amendment. this, dispose rationale of those cases ruled we would of They it with the mere per curiam citation of the cases. do not rule it. Since at best this Court’s reversal of a want process always State court’s conviction for of due power involves a delicate exercise of there is since sharp propriety a division as to the of its in this exercise appropriate I case, explicitly pos- deem it to state as I I why, although difficulties, sible have doubts and support of cannot affirmance the conviction. very

The doubts difficulties derive from the nature of problem They frequently before us. arise when obliged give vague this Court is definiteness to “the or, change spin contours” of Due Process figure, concept. gossamer State action out of that Subtle and even are, elusive as its criteria we cannot es- cape duty judicial duty, The nature of the review. however, especially important makes in to be humble it. exercising Humility this context means an alert self-scrutiny so avoid infusing vagueness as to into the a merely private Constitutional command one’s notions. mortals, Like other judges, though unaware, may be prepossessions. grip only way to relax such grip, only way a to avoid finding the Constitution personal placed in it, explore bias one has is to shaped unanalyzed influences that have one’s views lay prepossessions. order to bare A preoccupation lifetime’s with justice, criminal prosecutor, defender of civil stu- liberties, scientific dent, naturally Thus, leaves one with views. I disbe- in capital punishment. lieve I judge But as a could not impose very the views of the few who through States experience capital punishment upon bitter have abolished all the States, by finding process” pro- other that “due I Again, capital scribes it. do not believe that even by boys according offenses of fifteen should be dealt with how- would, procedure. criminal the conventional usurpation to hold States judicial be bald ever, Haley like subjecting minors the Constitution violate consistently If with the procedure. State, a to such charged fifteen Amendment, may try boy of Fourteenth I cannot ordinary procedure, murder criminal free capable choice youth such a never say that a confession eyes law, makes which, action hardly justifiable ex- “voluntary.” it would Again, dispose by finding case judicial power to this ercise of outlawry Due Process Clause Constitutional in the private by made an of all statements admissibility legislation to much police officer, to a however accused The Indian Evi- seem to me wise. See might that effect 25; Act of cf. 26. 1872, § § dence is a lad of fifteen “volun-

But a confession of whether and thus admissible, or tary” and as such “coerced” of mathematical process, in is not a matter wanting due judg- invites Essentially psychological it determination. deep, even that reflects psychological ment —a must divine society. Judges feelings if our inarticulate, all the relevant evi- feeling they as best can from for a bring to bear confi- light which can dence every endeavor issue, an and with judgment of such dent private views. merely from their detach themselves to experience has noteworthy that while American (It for in upon framing drawn constitutions been Due Clause has countries, Process other democratic copied. See, also, illuminating debate been Rule Bill amend Irish Home proposal 42 H. C. Deb. Due Clause. our Process incorporating 23, 1912).) 2082-2091, (5th ser., 22, Oct. 2215-2267 im- appears vague and thus formulated While issue limita- repeated too that the palpable, it cannot be often the Fourteenth Due Process Clause of tions which the the methods States placed Amendment may prosecute for cannot be more narrowly crime con- give possible scope ceived. This Court must the freest proce- States in the choice of their methods of criminal procedures dure. But these cannot include methods may fairly deeply be deemed to be conflict with rooted feelings community. concurring opinions See York, 401, 412, Malinski v. New 324 U. S. and Louisiana Resweber, ex rel. Francis v. 329 U. S. 466. Of course apply, apply this is a most but it we must, difficult test to warily, and from case to case. precise

This issue on the record before brings me boy complicity us. Suspecting fifteen-year-old mid- resulting attempted robbery, murder at about night police took him from his home to head- quarters. five hours questioned There he was about at least five interrogated relays officers who morning pro- two more. About five o’clock police regarded cedure culminated what the a con- formally whereupon writing. it was reduced to fession, During interrogation boy the course of the was not advised that he not obliged talk, was his right say word, he chose to not a nor that he was entitled to have the of help family. benefit counsel or the of upon Bearing safeguards the rights, of these the Chief of admitted boy Police that while he knew that the “had a to remain right any mute and not answer questions” he did police not know that it was the of duty apprise him of that Unquestionably, during fact. whole this period Only he was held incommunicado. after the night- long questioning satisfactory had resulted disclosures police and as documented, such to be was there read to boy a clause formula giving conventional about his right to make or withhold a constitutional statement stating it, that he makes he makes it of his “own free will.” Do these uncontested facts justify a State court in or do “voluntary,” boy’s confession that finding preclude finding a nature by very their the circumstances exercised choice was responsible deliberate of five came at the end boy the confession questioning? hours on intimated, depends already been answer, as has

The accurately factors, or, more an psychological evaluation of regarding feeling society stated, pervasive upon cannot Unfortunately, we psychological factors. such of the existence any expression formulated draw on such experts available feeling. Nor are there Our Constitu- judicial judgment. guide matters to duty interpret those it system the Court’s tional makes gives Process Clause the Due society to which feelings vagueness inherent Because of their protection. legal most unsatis- guided to be are which we are the tests apply must them. they are we but such as factory, very na- that the have in effect denied Ohio courts precludes boy’s of the circumstances ture carries voluntary. Their denial finding much to over- requires of course. great weight, we Against it matter. not end the borne. But it does experience judicial comes from have the they pass in review trials with the conduct criminal impressive series cases An this Court. before temptations to abuse admonishes of courts and other suspects, confessions to secure endeavors secrecy, carried protracted questioning, through interrogations and fears disquietude the inevitable held while questioned in individuals engender naturally unpro- aid of counsel incommunicado, without Disinter- judicial inquiry. safeguards of tected wis- either not assure public good does zeal ested A report it pursues. the methods right dom Law Ob- National Commission President Hoover’s proof gave fact, servance Enforcement unfor- tunately, potentialities that of abuse were not the these sentimentality, of mawkish nor tolerance imaginings their necessary policy for a against desirable stern crime. a Legislation throughout country reflects similar belief purposes detention for of eliciting confessions through secret, persistent, long-continued interrogation deeply violates feelings sentiments embedded of States, McNabb v. United people. our See 318 U. S. 332, 342-43. is suggested Haley’s could guilt easily have been

established the sweat- without elicited confession ing process night’s of But interrogation. secret proof against affords one more guarding mis- process use of the law enforcement the effective detection of crime and prosecution are furthered criminals hampered. and not Such constitutional restraints decency derive from reliance resources intel- ligence dealing too discourage easy crime and temptations unimaginative force, crude even when such is force not brutally employed.

It would disregard part standards we cherish our faith in a strength well-being rational, civilized to hold that a society “voluntary” confession is simply because product the confession is sentient choice. “Conduct under duress a choice,” involves Union R. Co. v. Commission, Public Service Pacific 67, 70, S. U. conduct devoid of physical pressure but leaving free exercise of product choice of duress much so as choice reflecting physical constraint. Unhappily we have physical neither nor intellectual weights and judicial measures can pressures determine when securing reach intensity the coercive that calls for the exclusion of a so course, statement secured. Of meant That him talk. to make pressures upon Haley exercise In conclud- procedure. of their very purpose was the results voluntary a which ing is not statement to make in this case pressures from such as were exerted him gave talk the Constitution a lad of when fifteen the situation keep silent when right and thereby and rights of his appreciation so contrived withheld asserting effectively the means them were a merely I express him I do not believe police, a finding, against procedure. Such personal bias I notions of fairness believe, reflects those fundamental justice guilt in the determination of or innocence people feelings lie in the the American embedded Four- and are enshrined the Due Process Clause to re- To remove the inducement teenth Amendment. repeatedly denied methods this Court has sort to such use the fruits of illicit methods. have I confession should

Accordingly, Haley’s think it should conviction been excluded based not stand. Justice, whom Burton, The Chief

Mr. Justice concur, Reed Justice Jackson Mr. Justice Mr. dissenting. turning largely narrow one of fact

The issue here testimony whose upon the of witnesses credibility of other with that points is in direct conflict material this today by Court rendered witnesses. by the State procedure that the authorized does not hold admissibility of Ohio to determine per se capital of a offense violates person of a accused Amendment. Fourteenth Due Clause Process pro- made of application merely holds process due to a violation of cedure in this case amounted record, that, on this Amendment the Fourteenth under it amounted to a refusal the trial court to exclude jury particular from the confession which this Court involuntary is convinced was an confession.

The following disputed: facts are not About midnight, 14, 1945, storekeeper on October Canton, Ohio, was shot death in his store one of two Alfred boys, Parks, aged 16, or Willie Lowder, aged accused, 17. The John Haley, then about Harvey years and 8 months old and a in high school, senior boys was with these they before went into the store and was waiting for them outside of it at the time when the shooting Haley occurred. testified “all of I a sudden heard shot and a man and I hollered, was scared and I boys ran.” The two other away also ran immediately after the shot was fired. The three soon Haley met and then went boys home. These had together been all that evening. Early in the evening, while Parks and Lowder waited Haley’s outside of home, Haley went in to get a pistol joint for their use. knowledge Without the Mack, William the pistol, owner of the Haley took from a trunk a pistol .32 caliber Haley automatic which had shot once on New Day and, Year’s from place another in his home, handful of pistol. ammunition for the boys part The three took it. loading Haley then turned it over to Parks and one Lowder, or the other of whom thereafter possession retained it throughout evening. day A or two after Haley the shooting, asked boys the two what had done with gun. He testified answer said “They they got rid of it.” This much of the story Haley testified to at the trial and has admitted substantially ever since his arrest since abandoning first, and admittedly false, statement he and his two friends had gone to show that evening. A .32 caliber pistol, automatic Colt the admission of which in evidence is not in issue, here was sent by the Canton police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for iden- killed the store- which with the bullet tification, together police at cartridge found and a shell keeper expert witness An uncontradicted of the crime. the scene pistol, com- F. I. fired three bullets from B. with those microscopic markings on them pared storekeeper and, on this had killed the bullet which weapon pistol identified the basis, positively admittedly fatal shot fired fatal shot. This had store of the were in the while Parks Lowder fired with which possession pistol and were deceased the record nothing had There Haley supplied them. any pistol. other presence in the store of suggest he like” the one Haley pistol “looked testified companions. to his given had evidence, and other material foregoing

After hearing jury found disputed Haley, including the degree attempting while him murder the first guilty of a robbery. The verdict carried recom- perpetrate to reduced the automatically mercy mendation of which imprisonment. from death to life statutory penalty particularly and whole, the record as a considering In police officers fact that the reaching a conclusion of making him into his con- Haley coerced who examined un- foregoing note that fession, appropriate it is need for such left little disputed comparatively facts confession, Haley. That signed by was a confession as by Haley express statement substance, added Parks Lowder went into the store he knew that and Haley remained outside storekeeper and that to rob by and Lowder serve as lookout and to warn Parks a anyone approached. window in tapping case they as soon procedure by followed they Haley had the arrested information substantially as follows: again midnight, October at about Friday, 19, 1945,

On after Haley up home, while was still and and about game, an football he was evening returned from having to his home by policemen four who came arrested Haley’s by home They were admitted two cars. police head- and took him with them to his mother He was “booked” there using handcuffs. quarters, until between 3 and a. m. From then at about 12:30 bu- in the record room of the detective a. m. he was place there with two officers. What took reau, usually is and later confession up oral, signed, to his leading directly contradictory testimony given subject police. Haley and testified that he was the accused testimony is handled in such a manner that roughly voluntary. was not On the other believed confession present and who was or saw hand, everyone else in detail, this examination testified Haley during after was not abused or positiveness, Haley and with person handled in and that his and roughly any degree presented appearance a normal after the examina- clothes Haley alleged after had been shown Immediately tion. and had read at least confessions Parks Lowder and evidently an oral by Parks, made statement Haley Haley Thereupon, similar to that made Parks. a sergeant taken to a front room where detectives form typed Haley’s question answer to an during period which consumed from one hour hour and half. Before this confession taking Haley, clearly testified sergeant typed that he read of which distinctly, preliminary statement, part quoted opinion beginning in this being Court’s at of the sergeant written confession. The testified he still Haley, hearing introduction, after said that desired to make a statement and tell truth. When by completed, signed the statement, so was prepared, officers Haley presence of some of the him questioned who had but also of two civilian witnesses purpose police headquar- in for that from of called outside was a who himself Police, Chief of Acting ters. Haley read the Ohio, to requested member of Bar of done, Acting this had been entire confession. When admin- notary public, of a Police, capacity of in the Chief Haley the end the confes- by the oath at signed istered true therein were stating the facts contained sion, pho- A verily newspaper bevieved. Haley and correct as with company a picture then took tographer Haley following or on Parks and Either then Lowder. was back disputed, Haley taken Monday, being the date trunk found the described his home where the pistol. had taken the After him as that from which he and, on fol- city jail he in the placed county he Tuesday, 23, was removed lowing October complaint filed the Court jail. day, a On Ohio, Division County, Pleas of Stark Common sergeant a Department, Juvenile Relations, Domestic delinquent a child. Haley being with police, charging prose- a motion of the 29, 1946, pursuant October On the above-men- attorney, judge assigned to cuting Com- of the Court of Domestic Division tioned Relations appointed physical a doctor to make mon Pleas of the accused. mental examination physical exam- the mental 1, 1945, November On hearing, the found— and, was filed after court ination which, an act has committed “that the said child adult, an would had been committed [it] said having an been made of the felony; examination Haley competent physician, qualified aby John said examination, ordered make such appear Haley personally be and before John shall day next first of Common Pleas Court act.” thereof to answer term docket 1945, transcript On November Court was filed in the Juvenile Court the above-mentioned in- an Thereafter, beginning Common Pleas. 612 on returned which was degree

dictment for first murder 8, 1946, proceeded arraignment case to January Common Pleas January 11, and to trial in the Court of charged a 25-April 3, guilty March when verdict of A mo mercy. a returned, was recommendation a and the case tion for new trial was overruled County, Ohio, appealed Appeals Court of for Stark unanimously 25, 1946. there was affirmed October appeal for Appeal made, both on motion leave Supreme Court Ohio. right, and as matter of to appeal The motion for leave was overruled and the appeal, right, as matter of was dismissed unanimous judges sitting action of the five the case. The reason for dismissal was that the court found that given no question debatable constitutional was involved case.1 arraignment accused, with the

Beginning Haley represented by record shows that has been counsel. proceeded in this pauperis, case has Court forma represented by competent being the accused the same represented him counsel who in the state courts. It does appear the accused ever asked have counsel appointed for him. It appear that, any does not at time arraignment, employed before his he asked for counsel or 1 appears opinion Appeals for the Court of Stark County boys separately in this case that the three were indicted and Haley by juries. tried. Lowder and were tried Parks waived that right judges. and was tried before three Each was convicted degree, mercy. Appeals murder the first with a recommendation of together judgments from the three cases heard were were single opinion emphasizing separate affirmed in each with a con- given Lowder, v. sideration that had been to each. Ohio v. Ohio Haley, Parks, App. 237, 568, v. 2d Ohio 79 Ohio 34 O. O. 72 N. E. also, Haley, 340, 905; v. 2d 785. See Ohio 147 Ohio St. 70 N. E. Lowder, 530, 102; Parks, v. Ohio 147 72 N. E. 2d v. Ohio St. Ohio 81; appeal St. 72 E. 2d Ohio N. where each was dismissed question. lack a debatable constitutional approach to represent him. The nearest counsel to Haley’s mother testimony the action by is disclosed Leroy parties aby stipulation between the 22, was em- attorney, Monday, an on October Contie, represent her Mr. Contie by Mrs. ployed Haley son. Haley’s confes- jail on two city went to occasions after was unable to him and refused signed, see sion was was did not police authorities. Contie admission Mr. after latter had transferred to Haley see until been county jail, days apparently some after that. He attorney an of record the case. did not become his Haley’s It behalf that arrest disputed is not been after his arrest would have questioning uncoercive under such circumstances. While constitu- proper accused, under such statutory rights tional and safeguarded carefully, equally is circumstances, must statutory obligations constitutional and clear that serious promptly to discover law enforcement officers upon rest as had been unprovoked an murder those of such guilty these youth Likewise, comparative committed. murder now have been convicted of this boys three who considering recognition to full constitu- entitled applied law that been tionality process has recog- Haley’s This been done. youth them. has before expressly by preliminary proceedings nized of Domestic Department the Juvenile of the Division markedly proceedings Relations of the local court. Those ordinarily procedure from that followed differentiated the Undoubtedly thought in the case of an adult. jury’s recommendation Haley’s youth was reflected sergeant and the Act- mercy, and in the care which the preparing his Chief of Police testified that took ing Haley seeing and in to it that signature It is with it. rights it and connection understood offense hand, on the other that the necessary recognize, juvenile an It not offense. charged ordinary here capital awas offense of the most kind. in- serious volved the same fatal consequence law-abiding of Canton citizen as would have been the case it had been committed An obligation adult offenders. rests perpetrators to discover the but to determine, promptly crime also pos- as sible, guilt their a degree innocence to sufficient to justify prosecution their or release. It is common knowl- edge many being felonies are currently committed by minors obligation and an attaches to law enforcement to punish, prevent officials and discourage such conduct by minors as well If Haley’s adults. part crime had reasonably been suspected police the im- mediately after its commission midnight, at October 14, the would have deserved severe if they criticism not arrested questioned had that night. him The obligation same on them, rested days five later, at midnight, October 19.

As admitted petitioner the Court, the entire issue here resolves itself into a consideration of the meth- ods used in obtaining the confession. This in turn re- solves itself primarily question into a of the credibility of witnesses as a means of the determining contested question to what methods fact were A used. volun- tary confession only not is valid but it is the usual, best and generally fairest kind of evidence. Often it is the only direct evidence obtainable as to the state of mind of the accused. The giving of such a promptly confession is to be encouraged in the interest of all concerned. The justified are and under obligation to seek con- fessions. At the time, same it is a primary part of their obligation to see to it that coercion, including intimi- dation, is not used to secure a confession. It should be evident to them only not that involuntary confessions are worthless as evidence, but that applied coercion in secur- ing them itself constitutes a serious violation of duty. the one—was simple is the The in this case question cases many other voluntary? As fact deter- testimony, to conflicting difficult, it is because of possible to may controlling fact. It mine this perjury, Self-serving of it. absolutely become certain ex- mandatory pass-key to a not be the however, must is evidence. from use as clusion of the confession safeguards the jury, the under judge trial even- apply to process of criminal law, due constitutional factual issues. justice handed determination help lawful aid this, need available every To do testimony. conflicting credibility them test Amendment of law under the Fourteenth process Due fair means to determine that the states use some requires in this a confession like that voluntary character form The procedure may differ in each state. case. The is this Court. adopted by Ohio not criticized application of validity is here question sole appli- That facts of this case. procedure the Ohio great under be tested this Court cation can printed by use of the appraise, handicap attempting jury taken trial court and the action record, every In connection with living record. light to how testimony as unaccompanied by confession that conjectured bemay all sorts conditions secured, it was of con- rely upon secure it. To as to the methods used to accused, is not against in favor of or jecture, either any due law definition. justice. process It is not of as to the methods all of conditions Similarly, sorts may such a confession obtaining used in might have been falsely testified by a witness and conjectured be testimony into direct puts the true him. Such action case, the conflict present In with the false. conflict or more one that it is evident that testimony is so clear of The is- perjury. committed must have of the witnesses rights into of civil therefore, not one itself, sue resolves testimony as falsity but into of the truth or one obtaining Haley’s used in confession. to the methods be resolved here credibility This issue of cannot as that nearly determining as a chance of the truth good They jury. the trial court and enjoyed by which was examined the ex- saw and heard the witnesses Appellate and Furthermore, they and the State hibits. con- Supreme general Courts also were familiar with the of law effect ditions and standards enforcement 100,000 of over long-established industrial civic center people Canton, where this confession was made Ohio, testimony and used. The of the witnesses as to the methods used should read in of the com- the context it munity testimony given where such in order for racial fairly appraised. suggestion to be There is no any prejudice discrimination or existed in the attitude community witnesses, or of the courts or of the credibility particular Canton. of these The issue is the police officers and other local cannot be witnesses. published reports, on the basis however determined authentic, methods other communities years. other “The mere fact that a confession was made while custody not render it does States, inadmissible.” McNabb v. United S.U. 346. present case, turning does the cred-

ibility of testimony coercion, the existence of the if any, that was used secure confession, readily distinguishable from relied upon by cases accused. example, For present case, this Court rely any does not claim that the confession was elicited by unreasonably delaying the arraignment of the accused or even by any alleged delay in charging him with delinquency in the Juvenile Court. The con- fession of the accused was given, signed transcribed and 20, immediately following a. m. on October 5:30 is, accordingly, no basis midnight. at about There arrest delay taking unnecessary contending that there was jurisdic- having or magistrate the accused before a court unnecessary delay, the offense insofar as such tion of delay Whatever any, had relation to the confession. made confession was and there was occurred after the delay it is that was not unreasonable obvious it magistrate at least before court or taking the accused Mitchell, S. United States a. m. v. 322 U. until after 5:30 States, 350; 65. Cf. Anderson United v. S. U. States, McNabb United v. S. 332. 318 U. testimony of the sev-

If and unequivocal consistent Acting that of the believed, including eral officers is voluntary. clearly Chief of Police, the confession was local in the experience The were men officers in, indulged if inferences are and, detective service necessity it understood the be inferred may it to be voluntary if was and the confession be uncoerced examining officers The principal in evidence. admissible of eleven other detectives, one of nine were two who sergeant of detectives The police service. years’ years’ police a man nine typed confession was in the ex- any part Every policeman who took service. testified Each amination called as witness. was during the intimidation of force and no no use there was in fact the confession Each examination. testified was de- The accused questioning was uncoerced. parties on while carried having been scribed as length near a within arm’s desk were seated room of conducted the record other. each jail. The accused bureau, rather than detective police, subjected indignities. nor not handcuffed brought who was the iceman newspaper reporter, tes- signature to the confession to witness the accused’s person clothing tified to normal and appearance the the examination, in- during following of the accused the cluding time photographed. he The witnesses they severally testified what observed dur- had ing periods that respective present but, were they together, covered the period the examina- entire If tion. the confession was in wit- voluntary, fact these prove nesses could If have said more to it. their testimony true, it is makes testimony false much testing accused. The credibility this important. testimony is therefore testimony, This fur- thermore, should not laid merely be aside here because is in conflict with opposing testimony. If the trial court and jury believed the disbelieved accused on this ground there no testimony, substantial for any left If, inference of coercion. contrary, they believed the accused therefore concluded that and other agreeing witnesses with them were perjurers, trial court could not fairly have admitted evidence. ample evidence the record includes evidence to support the action judge taken the trial and jury against if Court accused chooses to believe evidence and to the conflicting disbelieve Fur- evidence. thermore, evidence, believed, so strong specific enough greatly to offset conflicting inferences might suggested otherwise be to this Court undisputed evidence.

aAs reviewing court, major we obligation have guard against reading printed into the con- purely record jectural conjecture concepts. To printed from the record of this accused, case that prox- his because known imity to the scene of the crime and known association night with the one of whom boys, did the actual shooting, have must been hardened, smart whose boy, testi- all of his necessarily made and falsehoods conduct be se, as it would unjustifiable is as mony per worthless witnesses, him or his mother as seeing without assume, to be lad, likely innocent impressionable, an he was all his and that police surroundings panic-stricken by ex- except true where accepted testimony must To assume him to been false. have pressly admitted policemen, including the printed from the record unequivo- who Chief, gave and the civilians Acting the intimida- of force and testimony to the absence cal as to the normal in the or as securing tion confession clothing of at the time of and his appearance the accused feelings the of callous as to making confession, of the were perjury deliberate age guilty 15 of were of boy years or without assume, to unjustifiable would as it would be be as wit- hearing seeing respective and the officers, well-informed, tolerant nesses, each of them was as case, In this juvenile judge. an ideal thoughtful and conflicting all the seems to have laid aside this Court wit- hearing or the then, seeing without testimony balance draw, meager nesses, attempted has to the of callousness record, important inferences of By officers. dis- part examining of the coercion on the of testimony instead conflicting material regarding material testi- the true and the false choosing between is reduced to isolated largely material record mony, the subsequent part conduct on the certain items alleged hampered boy’s who to have mother officers are days him attorney trying an several after or to see officers There is no likelihood these confession. examination.2 It were the same ones who conducted the Columbia, District of this Court In a case which arose said: attending making legality of these

“But circumstances For nullified, suggested, what followed. it is oral statements are say opinion today Court to its enough is not this undisputed suggests that force or if “the evidence confession, per- to we will not was used exact coercion .” Recog- . . . conviction to stand mit trial to right must court given nition also disputed credibility the material evidence. weigh the sus- position, are in a on the basis of mere We not the trial court in error and conclude picion, hold by means from a child wrung “that this was coercion the law should not sanction.” While be un- securing and intimidation a confession should punished and product their equivocally condemned pre- should not be invalidated, nevertheless such coercion suggestion suspicion, of a mere sumed to exist because On findings by the triers of fact. contrary the face of testimony relied undisputed the basis Court, justified making it is determination police” thereby of “the of Canton as callous attitude sworn testimony override not of the State’s public officials but also the of the triers of conclusions knowledge, The with judge, fact. trial his first-hand credibility by testimony of the in both indicated the open and of the police” court the habitual “attitude of eight days after the statements were made was Mitchell not until magistrate. Undoubtedly arraigned committing his deten- before a during period illegal. Illegality illegality, tion . . and was . special guardians of the officers of the law should deem themselves event, any illegality in does law. But the of Mitchell’s detention change retroactively made not the circumstances under which he through These, seen, we have were not elicited the disclosures. admission, therefore, illegality. Their would be use the Gov- Being relevant, wrongdoing by of fruits of its officers. ernment the punitive against measure unrelated could be excluded police. duty shaping of wrongdoing the Our rules evidence power propriety admitting This is not relates to the evidence. disciplining United to used as an indirect mode misconduct.” be Mitchell, 65, 70-71. v. 322 U. States S. found to Canton, any attitude, if there be such the law

contrary. judge That and the enforcement officers by the of Ohio with of Canton have been entrusted State obligations of the of the the enforcement constitutional to public to individual also each individual each proof upset In the substantial public. the absence of public the trial these officers should findings court, the not be with callousness or with violation charged toward, their of, obligations. constitutional the admission of confes- legal process governing

The jury trials Ohio in a case like this sions evidence The Ohio takes these conditions into consideration. for a examination procedure provides preliminary determine presence of the of the judge, jury, trial out involuntary. should be excluded whether length was made at this case an examination Such jury, objec- overruled judge, in the absence of the The upon ground. tion made to the confession again presence jury was of the motion renewed a verdict for likewise refused direct judge denied. The at close again at of the case and Haley the close State’s admissibility the confession entire case. its admis- and, in the before fully trial court argued advisement subject took under sion, judge the trial Having end. over week adjourned hearing while he excluded, was not to that the confession was decided ample He did this duty jury. it to the submit in con- jury responsibility of its advising instructions Testimony given then with the confession. nection upon bearing presence jury, length, at in the prob- as well as of the confession voluntariness final instruc- falsity of its contents. The able truth or and only obligation emphasized not tions of court upon the voluntariness jury pass opportunity of appropriate give also obligation the confession but its testimony- of all the weight light by jury in the event that the confession was found voluntary have been a one.3 jury to the The trial court included in its final instructions following: that, general, you

“You recall that I have heretofore said to will But, you judge admissibility will determines the of evidence. alleged Monday just statements recall I think that on before certain by by the de- or declarations claimed the State to have been made fendant, consisting alleged part part oral of an written and typed declaration, D, statement or identified as State’s Exhibit were you by judge permitted to be introduced the instruction that jury finally, first, would the end and determine whether declarations, defendant made said statements and if he did make it, they voluntarily by and of his whether were made the defendant will; you own free and further in he did make the event should find voluntarily weight, will, just them and made them and of his free what any, should be accorded them. again your “I now direct The State attention to that evidence. claims the defendant made said statements and declarations and voluntarily he made them and of his own free will. The defendant they denies the State’s said claims and asserts not made volun- were tarily questions and of free will. You from the will decide these all you evidence in the case. Should find from all the evidence that them, the defendant did not make or if he them he did not made voluntarily will, you make them and of his free event will disregard entirely them and not consider them further. On the other hand, you should find defendant did make them and that he made voluntarily will, you them and of his own free will consider them give just weight you evidence and them to which find from all they you evidence are entitled. Should find from the evidence by that some of them were made the defendant and him made voluntarily will, by him, and of his free and find others were not made by him, or if made voluntarily will, him made and of his free you you will consider voluntarily those find were made him reject his free will and the others. You will consider the alleged declarations, separate oral statements or apart from the typed said statements, written or and the circumstances incident to each. “You guilt are instructed further that statements of or declarations guilt called, are through sometimes made the influence of

623 in Lisenba is rule of law this case stated governing California, v. S. U. 238: evi- one,

“There are as this where cases, such con- employed obtain a dence as to the methods to denial which, although conflicting, fession is an issue process trial, of due was not an issue involves by jury, has been resolved court and In a question. process an answer to due triers accept case, we the determination of fact, lacking support it is so in the evidence unless give it work that to would effect fundamental process.” due which is war with (Ital- at unfairness supplied.) ics itself properly opportunity

This Court to an reserves independently to like this consider record a case lower by from the consideration to that record given plays part However, credibility large courts. when rarely case, the record as does in this this Court hopes fears, by promises or statements or declarations induced weighed disadvantage, temporal or threats are benefit to any declarations not to be considered value. Statements and voluntary made, on which are not and of free will are excluded ground ground they probably for are not true. Another provision is a exclusion is that it violation of the constitutional against if he is required give himself, no for man shall be evidence against compelled by by hopes or threats induced make confession give himself, compelling indirect evidence it is an method of him to against himself, when or declarations under such statements made proven against him On the circumstances are afterwards in court. hand, admission, voluntary other free will and made statement against against interest, most interest, a defendant his is one of the voluntarily satisfactory proofs guilt, person innocent an will subject infamy liability punishment false state- himself against ments himself. admissions, must having

“The State offered these statements or made; par- prove proving that a were burden but the induce- improper ticular statement or obtained admission was ments, general, is the defendant.” of the trial court judgment of the justify

can reversal true increasingly This jury. and the verdict affirmed, been trial court has where the preliminary In by of review. here, as two State courts in examination to the of the confession admissibility may the trial court have believed the case, this there is more than basis, disbelieved the accused. On that in support the trial conclusion ample evidence to court's A statement refusing to exclude confession. similar to the may presentation to the of evidence made as justifiable Court, testing is for this jury. not fact, rely on inferences conclusions of the triers of which, solely portions drawn of the record those disputed. not separately, when read were apparently sharply acceptance of one version or other fact conflicting testimony was before the triers of which reasonably justify a conclusion of the trial court could jury or without ref- exclude admit confession spite implications or which to, of, might erence even undisputed comparatively be drawn from the colorless undisputed This testimony testimony that stood alone. record appraisal Court should include its undisputed but it for testimony, also should allow and jury, reasonable conclusion the trial court based acceptance rejection disputed testimony. On Court in this basis, justified, case, this this is not holding judge the determination the trial admissible, holding by or that jury lacking “is guilty, the trial confessor so support give in the evidence that effect would fundamental unfairness is at work that war process.”4 due testing process

In due this Court must first make sure way testing its facts. Until better credi- found open bility court, than of witnesses examination California, supra, p. 238. See Lisenba v. wide juries we must trial courts and discretion give living record, distinguished in this field to which a In printed from a entitles them. record, logically many are to the truth which living guideposts record there printed seeing are not in the Without them our- record. do heed those who have selves, give we will well to seen them. RAILROAD

CALLEN v. PENNSYLVANIA CO. January 12, Argued 1948. No. 331. December 1947 . Decided

Case Details

Case Name: Haley v. Ohio

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jan 19, 1948

Citation: 332 U.S. 596

Docket Number: 51

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS