*1 303 Dist., Mar. Div. One. 1965.] 6938. Second No. [Crim. Respondent, EDWARD v. PEOPLE, Plaintiff THE Appellant. BENAVIDEZ, Defendant THOMAS pro. per., Benavidez in and Robert W. Edward Thomas appointment by Appeal, District Stanley, under Court of Appellant. for Defendant
Stanley Lynch, Attorneys General, C. Mosk and Thomas James, Attorney General, and S. E. Assistant Clark William Moore, Attorney Respond- Plaintiff Deputy General, for ent. court in LILLIE, J. of the trial this cause (adjudging guilty 19, 1959, on defendant first
made June opinion degree murder) court in filed was affirmed this (People Barreras, al., Benavidez, Appel- et 8,1960, on June v. Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. appellant’s lant, 454]); 609 [5 hearing petition for a was denied Court Thereafter, pursuant 1960. to decision of the Augustz States, the remittitur herein United judgment of court was recalled and the this was vacated in (in light Douglas California, order to consider 811]) appoint U.S. 353 matter of appeared ment of counsel for defendant Benavidez who had persona propria appeal previously when this before this Thereupon, appointed court Mr. Stanley court. Robert W. *2 Again as counsel Benavidez. of the trial opinion by affirmed in an court was this court filed December 1, 1964; appellant’s petition hearing for a by granted January 27, 1965, Court was on and the cause re- light transferred to court for reconsideration of Esco Illinois, bedo v. 378 U.S. 977]. charged robbery, Defendant and one Barreras were attempted robbery and cause murder. The was submitted on transcript testimony the ing taken preliminary at the hear- way stipulation by submitted ; also for consideration court, a was written statement of the defendants and one Trujillo taken their arrest the officers. Defendants no they testify offered evidence on their behalf nor did at the guilty degree found murder; trial. Both were first Only appealed. first two counts were dismissed. Benavidez approximately 21, 1958, At 2:05 a.m. on Allsop December walked across the Mercury Johnson street behind a 1949 they walking automobile; pulled up continued the car alongside of emerged them from which Barreras de- Trujillo, minor, a fendant. remained in They the car. told Johnson, Allsop and at whom pointing gun, defendant was a Allsop, having to throw down their wallets. wallet, no threw change ground; Johnson, having injured his on the back, ground got on up, sat down to rest. He “holding then back, them”; his walked toward defendant shot him in the 25, 1958, chest. Johnson died December the result of the gunshot wound. Defendant and Barreras then returned to car, stalled, Allsop gun which had point and forced help push Allsop so, it; immediately did but thereafter called police body who found Johnson’s face down Mercury near a automobile stuck the mud. later, a.m., Several hours around 4:30 defendant Bar- appeared Angie reras at the home of 118th Villalobes on Place.
Defendant told her he was in trouble and asked her to take home; friends he told her had he shot man. 6 or Around placed shotgun 6 :30 a.m. he under her bed. Later officers rang the bell and walked into the front room of a on house they 46th where asleep Street arrested Barreras who was on why they arresting couch. He asked them were him they knew, responded, when told him that he Barreras “No”; picked up pair one officer of shoes from the floor and asked police they them; him to look at mud on told him had found the and knew he had shot a man. automobile Barreras him, then he shot and would said had been there and he take others, directing Place, them to the them to 118th where custody. asleep they took defendant into Defendant was when arrived; about, told, when asked what it was all he he you they “Don’t know?” him Police advised knew what had happened shot, and knew a they man had been and said they shotgun; wanted the it, when told that would search for you said, “Well, defendant will find it it is anyhow, there bed,” pointing under the foot to the of the bed in which he slept. shotgun had The was disassembled under the mattress. defendant, juvenile, officers took Barreras Tru- jillo, station where their statements were taken. freely voluntarily given Defendant’s statements were promise without he, of reward. Defendant said that Barreras Trujillo and around; p.m. had met around 6:30 and had driven shortly they after 2 a.m. were around 182nd and Trujillo Western; driving, that Barreras was was seated in the front and was in he rear with the shotgun; that two bar, men out came of a thumped were both drunk and one *3 ear; got they the standing; that out went to where the men were shotgun that had a he his hand and asked the why man he had hit car; that their denial and after one names, called them said, your Barreras money “Throw down,” and (Benavidez) put up he told them to their hands; money down, one threw the other laid down grass, on the up got then and started towards him, he (Benavidez) him; shot gun didn’t he know whether the went off acci- dentally deliberately or but he tried to shoot him in the leg; shooting gun that after Allsop Johnson he held the on push him ear, made but after it started it stuck in the mud; and that Angie’s abandoned the ear and went to house. Neither defendant testified at the trial or offered a defense.
The evidence read without the confession leads to the in- escapable conclusion that Benavidez killed Johnson in cold perpetration robbery; blood of a mitigating it shows no any shotgun circumstances held Benavidez kind.. on victims, Johnson, Allsop the two gun point shot forced help push lay the car out of mud while dying, Johnson abandoned the car when moved, could not it fled the scene
306 foot,
on secreted himself in the home of a friend and hid the gun under the mattress of the bed on which he was found sleeping the officers. Neither defendant saw fit to take the explain stand what occurred. Appellant’s contentions sufficiency relative to the support
the evidence to
degree
the conviction of first
murder,
pleading
the variance between
and proof, the use of an infor
capital case,
mation in a
denial of
rights'
his constitutional
during trial,
admissibility
of certain evidence and his
jeopardy
claim of double
are all without merit, but, while
freely
record shows that his confession was
and voluntarily
given,
compelled
we are
to conclude
rulings
under recent
Illinois (1964)
Escobedo v.
378
1758,
U.S. 478
S.Ct.
[84
977],
People
L.Ed.2d
v. Dorado (1965)
Rejecting the request contention that the failure to counsel People v. thereof, a waiver the constitutes Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 338, 349 (1965) 62 Cal.2d [42 Dorado matures at this right to “The counsel P.2d declared: 361] originate in the right does not accusatory stage; critical know his that must of it.” held he assertion of It accused’s that “In the intelligently waive right in order to that had already knew he that defendant of evidence absence a during interrogation, failure of right of counsel right finding that precludes a inform him of that officers to ’’* right one to knowingly it. of accused he waived As say: had to silent, Court in Dorado remain right to that accused has the not also holds “Escobedo that, any silent, self- and to remain incriminate himself incriminatory admissible, he must are waive statements to knowledge right. presupposes of the that Such waiver knowledge, of evidence of such silent; to in the absence remain right.”* requires warning the accused of the waiver to excluding appellant’s evidence, con- doubt the Without killing points directly to of Johnson fession, his coldblooded shotgun were in and Barreras with a sawed-off while he Allsop. regardless process robbing But of of Johnson strong guilt against appellant may be, of the evidence how disposition permit of the of Dorado not introduc- rule tion does ground that on the it constitutes harm- of his confession use of error, for therein the court held the con- less process requires results a denial due reversal fession guilt. regardless Therefore, pre- we of other are evidence appellant prejudiced inquiring from into whether cluded light in the admission in evidence of confession undisputed testimony eyewitness, Allsop, the Angie Villalobes, clear immediately whom, killing, after the he to man,” officers, shot a the results told “he had police investigation, and statements made to the custody. Thus, inasmuch as him before he was taken into subject inquiry, prejudice is the matter of our we are (People Dorado, v. compelled to reverse the conviction. Cal.Rptr. 169, 361].) 338, 357 398 P.2d
Cal.2d is reversed. J.,
Wood, P.
concurred.
FOURT, J.
dissent.
I
engulfing
mania of
case is but another result
This
attempt
newly-
find,
find,
a so-called
courts
some
Dorado,
*People
398 P.2d
62 Cal.2d
352 [
born dangerous criminal with the result that erly convicted can be released. criminal significant events involved this chronology of the is as follows:
case 21, committed. 1958—Murder robberies December charging appellant January 22, filed 1959—Information robbery (1) robbery, attempted (2) and codefendant (3) murder. arraigned. January 23, 1959—Defendants February ap- 6, plead each guilty; 1959—Defendants pleads pellant also self-defense. May 17, 12, continued to
March 1959—Trial 1959. 1959—Stipulated May 12, by parties all to submit upon transcript preliminary hearing—continued matter May 19, 1959. May 19, 1959—Both sides rest—each defendant found — guilty charged in count three found to be murder degree. first 19, imposed (life
June 1959—Sentence imprisonment). 28, telegraphic appeal June 1959—A notice received 29, showing 1959. No signed June as to sent who telegram. appellant July Letter of 29, 1959, dated directed 26, 1959, court and received October wherein appellant, handwriting in his own states that he is guilty of murder attorney but wanted an appointed for him. — 23, December 1959—This court considered the record — independent investigation
made determined that would advantageous appellant be neither helpful .to nor to the court — appointed have application counsel attorney for an denied.
February 23, 1960—Appellant 28-page filed a brief. April 5, 1960—Respondent filed answer. April 21, 1960—Appellant nine-page filed a closing brief. — 1960—Opinion June filed in Appeal District Court of Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. (affirmed judg 454] ment).
July 13, 1960—Appellant petitioned Supreme Court for hearing. August 3, 1960—Order filed unani-
mously denying appellant’s petition for
hearing.
became
August 8,
issued
1960—Remittitur
(supposedly).
final
—
1963—Judgment having become final
January 31,
killing
shotgun
and other
de-
used in the
exhibits
sawed-off
stroyed by
pursuant to law.
court order
—
1963—Douglas v.
March
April 2, counsel to recall the 1964—Petition remittitur. April court, to, 7, 1964—This because it had recalled the Douglas. judgment pursuant and vacated the
remittitur
*6
Illinois,
22,
June
1964—Escobedo
August 24, 1964—Respondent’s brief filed.
1, 1964—Opinion
again
filed,
December
of this court
affirm-
ing
judgment.
January
1965—Appellant’s
petition
hearing
in
filed
Court.
January 27,1965—Supreme
granted hearing
and the
cause was retransferred to this court for
in
reconsideration
light
Illinois,
of Escobedo v.
either defendant wanted he statements could do so. testimony preliminary hearing set forth tran-
script establishes, among things, appellant other held shotgun during robbery. Further, sawed-off in his hands that at a distance of not less than 3 feet nor more than 4 feet from victim, appellant pointed shotgun the deceased at the pene- victim’s chest and fired. There was a massive shotgun tration of pellets No. 6 size into the entrails victim, a man years age of about obviously who died shortly Appellant afterwards. surviving then told the vic- you tim “if run I you” will (the surviving shoot and he victim) was pushing directed to assist in the defendants’ get car to it started to the end that defendants could make escape. their The statement taken at the station was transcribed. In that appellant statement among said, things, other after the two being men who were robbed were told “throw your money he, appellant, down” keep told the men their hands where he could them. see With reference to the shot- *7 gun blast into the chest, appellant victim’s “well, I stated gun don’t if know accidentally the went off deliberately, I leg.” but tried to him shoot in the “So, stayed I stayed, you there, So, know. shotgun the hammer of the was already pulled back, my and had trigger, I hand on the like “ that.” intend to in shoot him the [DJidn’t stomach . . . ’’
intended in leg. to shoot him the
Appellant blackjack also had a with him.
The statement
was initialed
each of the defendants.
It
in
also indicated
the
appellant
was
statement that
had met
juvenile
jail
in
years
codefendant
city
tank in the
a few
before, then
later Norwalk and still later at Whittier.
At
hearing
the time
for
court, appellant
set
the further
in
present
appellant
with counsel, testify,
elected
to
not
judge upon
and the matter
to
was submitted
the
record
the
judge announced
The
indicated for determination.
heretofore
compelled
find
regret"
to
great
that he was
that it was "with
degree
guilty
first
of
appellant and his eodefendant
the
obviously had been
phase
the case
penalty
The
murder.
and the
parties, counsel
previously
between
discussed
not
prosecution does
"The
prosecutor
judge, for the
said:
phase, or
on the second
any
offer
further evidence
wish to
keeping
position
my
in
with
I will
penalty,
state
issue
thoroughly
this matter
my word,
I have discussed
counsel.
although
matter, and
tried this
this
with them before we
capital
my opinion
it
in
to whether
should
close case
as
evidence,
insofar as
punishment, have examined all
I
urging
Attorney’s
concerned, we are
officeis
the District
impose capital punishment.
asking
Court, or
the Court to
man
shot.
showed no remorse
These defendants
man,
the victim
They
with
assistance
fled the scene
later,
down
shot,
if
car hadn’t broken
was not
who
they
in
I
today.
event,
am not
be here
But
would not
punishment."
impose capital
asking
to
the Court
gentlemen . . . the court
judge
announced, "...
The
then
your attorneys
Attorney,
District
has conferred
agreed
circumstances I
that I would not con-
and under the
punishment.
capital
. . .’’ and then said that was with
sider
regret"
compelled
"deep
he was
to sentence them the
to
give
"every possible
prison and that he wanted to
them
state
Authority
parole
Adult
opportunity for the
think about
’’
sentencing,
judge
stated,
At
time of
further
on.
later
you gentlemen
regret
I
no
inform
...
have
other
"I
alternative . . .
except
deny probation
you
and sentence
may get
young
prison
you
.
You
out when
are still
. .
state
hope you
I
..."
. .
do.
.
fully
court,
appellate
this
I
intermediate
realize
as
upon
judicial
generally
in
court, is
called
to serve
effect as
light
reflecting
can,
we
moon,
best
from the sun of our
as
administering
(in
justice)
system
Court. The
light from
that source
the direction
a case
latest shaft
my colleagues rely
this
which
is set
forth
such
People
and Escobedo v. Illinois.
v. Dorado
opinion
reported
The first
this case
court is
Cal.App.2d
Cal.Rptr. 454],
filed June
1960.
appellant petitioned
hearing.
for a
unanimously
petition,
court
denied the
That
supposedly
August 8,
on
final
1960. About
became
two and
(March
Douglas
years
18, 1963)
California,
later
one-half
*8
312
814,
year Douglas, petition after a was filed in this court to recall the remittitur vacate the this ease. We were grant compelled Douglas the motion under and we did so. Douglas type In appeal person said that “the of an Appeal hinges afforded in the District of Court pay can whether or not he the assistance of counsel”— indigent further that “the where the record is unclear or the hidden, only meaningless errors are ritual, meaningful appeal. while the rich man has ...” Such a wholly statement is untrue if directed to the ease at hand. thoroughly every This court examined the record in detail opinion, opinion any wrote the on its face belies possibility might a rich have man fared better in this proceeding. Supreme (not of widely The Court this state then pro-prosecutor court), unanimously known ing. aas denied a hear- justices words, In other three of the District Court of justices Appeal Supreme of seven each Court care- fully judg- the record and scrutinized determined that the ment should affirmed. any event, appointed by In counsel was this court the around, time briefs were submitted and second again argued. the cause was again opinion affirming judg- The second December 1964. ment was filed There was thereafter a hearing petition in the for a Court and that court granted hearing and “retransferred” the ease from the light to this court “for reconsideration in approach I will Escobedo Illinois.” the matter in that light. opening paragraph of Escobedo states: question in critical this case is whether, “The under the circumstances, petitioner’s to honor refusal lawyer during
request to consult the course interrogation a denial constitutes ‘the Assistance in violation the Sixth Amendment Counsel’ to the Con- obligatory upon stitution as ‘made the States the Four- ’ Amendment, Wainwright, teenth Gideon v. 372 U.S. 342 799, 804, L.Ed.2d 733], A.L.R.2d thereby renders inadmissible in a state criminal trial in- *9 criminating by police during elicited statement the the inter- ’’ rogation. majority opinion
Near the conclusion of the
in Escobedo
here,
therefore,
where,
hold,
it is further stated: “We
longer
investigation
general inquiry
a
the
is no
into an un
begun
particular suspect,
solved crime but has
a
to focus on
suspect
police custody,
police
the
has been taken into
the
process
carry
interrogations
out a
of
lends itself to
eliciting incriminating statements,
suspect
requested
the
has
opportunity
been
an
lawyer,
and
and the
denied
to consult with his
police
effectively
have not
warned him of his abso
right
lute constitutional
to
silent,
remain
the accused has
been denied ‘the Assistance of Counsel’ in violation of the
Amendment to
obligatory
Sixth
the Constitution as ‘made
’
by
the
Amendment,
States
the Fourteenth
Gideon
Wainwright,
something unequivocally plain and in words, certainly the words use interpreted should be taken and in their com- monly accepted meaning. sense Otherwise, the results catastrophic, can may be whatever be can bent, stated twisted, or distorted to meet the fancies those who use those words. In Escobedo question “whether, the critical under circumstances, police to honor refusal request lawyer to consult during with his [Escobedo’s] interrogation. course ...” should constitute a viola- tion of rights his constitutional thereby render inadmis- any incriminating sible police. statement elicited (Italics added.) At or near majority the conclusion of the opinion, the court again in Escobedo set forth the conditions which must exist and under which suspect the statements of the could not be used, namely, (1) investigation when the longer gen- no a is inquiry eral into an unsolved crime, but has focused a on suspect, (2) suspect is in custody, police (3) carry process questioning out a eliciting which lends itself to incriminating statements, (4) suspect requested and has opportunity been denied an to consult with his lawyer, (5) police effectively have warned him of his abso- right lute constitutional to remain silent. police
In Dorado the court has effect held that when the suspect custody, inquiry have and the is focused on interrogation process him there is a it- and to which lends incriminating police self statements have not right effectively to or of informed defendant of his- counsel silent, his absolute to remain and no evidence estab- rights, that he waived then the defendant’s con- lishes such words, In other cannot be introduced into evidence. fession proceedings formal court court moved the rules of our has effect, policeman, In under back to the station. prime suspect forth, he thinks he the rule set when proceed arraign suspect custody for further must policeman properly questioning-—and if the does not so arraign suspect, full, complete voluntary even a con- suspect made within two minutes thereafter fession apparently And not admissible at the trial. done is is protect punish but (not person) an innocent perform duty—but their the net for a result failure *10 dangerous society criminal onto that a is turned loose and mercy dangerous people are at the of that criminal decent caught in crime until he is some other of violence. confusion, uncertainty, disarray A box of Pandora’s example, a is unleashed such For the law discord decree. committing judges, judges are full of cases where trial books proceeded understanding in with the and others have cases proper legal sufficient, that there a of all concerned was particular right by (such a defendant as a waiver some pronouncing public jury trial, delay trial, delay in in trial, appointment counsel, jury challenge, judgment, etc.) appellate court be- later have been reversed which judge justice thought court cause some that the lower anyone misinterpreted the evidence of waiver. Can had imagine many (even how criminals in future will swear fully complied though Dorado) with the law of an officer has they really they effect that did not understand that waiving they any rights, that did not hear were what say, emotionally policemen had to disturbed were really any rights. time and did not mean to waive at the Furthermore, easily light it can be seen in the of the fact rule is or can be laid down to that no workable as what proper consequence every a waiver and as a constitutes police necessarily practically will on In officer his own. words, says, effect, nullify the court it will other policeman’s efforts and the results obtained therefrom
315
court, but the court
standards of the
not meet the
if he does
policeman in advance what the standards
tell the
refuses
handcuffing
design
formula for
anyone
a better
are. Could
suspect
make declara-
Query:
have to
does the
?
impliedly
waive? What
is
waiver, or can he
tion of
coming
to a conclusion as
policeman is to use
standard
understandably
intelligently
suspect has
to whether
— keeping mind,
course,
rights
keep
still
waived his
particular
depend
facts and
must
that the waiver
including
case,
background,
ex-
each
circumstances of
suspect?
perience and conduct of the
thought that “the serious and
courts have
Heretofore the
making a determination
weighty responsibility” of
as
right
lodged
a waiver of a substantial
whether there was
in
judge.
Zerbst,
458,
v.
(Johnson
304
465
the trial
U.S.
1461,
Now,
357].)
82 L.Ed.
146 A.L.R.
S.Ct.
[58
supposed
policeman
the determi
apparently, the
make
suspect
an intelli
nation
gent
to whether and when
makes
knowledgeable
simple stating
The
of the
waiver.
interrogation
proposition makes it clear that
the successful
suspects
impossible
be next to
under
such rule.
will
past
has in the
Court
United States
right
ruled to the effect that there was no constitutional
suspect
a
right
to be advised of his
to counsel or of his
(Haynes Washington,
to remain
503
v.
373 U.S.
silent.
California,
1336, 10 L.Ed.2d
Crooker v.
513];
S.Ct.
357
[83
Lagay,
1287, 2
1448];
U.S. 433
L.Ed.2d
Cicencia v.
S.Ct.
[78
1523].) Likewise,
U.S. 504
357
our
[78
similarly
People
heretofore
held
Ditson,
Cal.Rptr. 165,
57
415
v.
People Garner,
Cal.2d
369 P.2d
[20
714].
Cal.Rptr.
v.
“Agents taught any person, are that or arrested interview, at outset of an must be advised that he not is required any given make a statement and statement against can him in Moreover, be used court. individual desires, that, may must informed if he he obtain the services attorney brutality of an or his own choice. Duress Any Agent type absolutely Special guilty forbidden. is subject to such conduct is immediate dismissal from the service. highest part of law enforcement become ethics ’' Agent’s Nothing accepted. Special credo. less can be pointed also out that article is Hoover F.B.I. investigative Depart- not a is arm of the force—it factfinding agency. Justice, strictly a It ment of does prosecution or make recommendations or authorize decline evaluations. any event, Edgar In if J. Hoover is to be used (and
authority assuredly be) I he then believe should it is appropriate something to have of more recent date. speech Ignatius Loyola In a University St. on November reported Congressional February 8, Record said, among things: he other “The moment has arrived when we must realistically face startling fact that since 1958 crime in country this increased five times faster than our population growth. crimes—murder, Serious rape, forcible robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, automobile theft—have steadily mounted since end of World War II. In 1951 these crimes for the topped first the 1 million mark, time than more mil 2¼ reported lion during serious crimes were 1963. more “Even ominous is the fact that terrifying spiral through in crime growing has come youthful about wave criminality year across the Nation. Last for the 15th con- year involving young secutive crimes people our increased previous year. over the For all crimes committed in serious youthful in 1963, responsible the United States for a offenders were staggering percent of the total arrests these crimes. *13 grim unhappy commentary “What a on the moral great strength climate of this Nation. The moral of our alarmingly.
Nation has decreased . . . ‘‘ shocking together public’s appar- These statistics with the morality ent indifference to them are indicative of the false tolerating today. . . we are . “Law are and order which foundations successful
government order, society must stand. Without law and will destroy itself. forget government must never that cannot “We favor one duty group special protect rights over its or one interest constantly guard government against of all citizens. We must groups rights pressure which would crush the of others their own under heel in order to achieve ends. “The of the land is above law individual. All must law, play cut the we dangerous it. we short game abide If only result in total all which can us because defeat for of if government system by law, destroy our destroy we only we our of achieving society. a stable means of nothing expediency. to do with “Justice It has noth- temporary
ing standards. . . . to do with “Unfortunately and humanity, too often if itself, left to along the line of least moves resistance. That is the reason progress, why prone we make such slow we are to wait pathfinders way for to blaze the for tous follow. Each of hopes beyond despair us there today darkness of something better in is store for tomorrow. It will be nothing tragic hope brought but to bear on the problem if today. crime the United States . . . of picture “. we are to reverse the crime country, . .If complacent we must make a sustained to stir the ones effort to awareness. mollycoddle young “We criminals release unreformed prey society. bleeding hearts, anew on The hoodlums particularly among judiciary, young are so concerned they rights criminals that become to the law- indifferent abiding citizens. judges courage high “We must have and a sense duty protect public adequately penalize of their and to stop spread if dangerous criminals we are to of serious and against society. crimes adopt a “We must most realistic attitude toward this problem.
critical approach We have the lenient tried (Italics added.) it has failed.” Furthermore, if it is to be inferred from Dorado rule enunciated there works well in system, the federal I only can think that the one area where have the federal system exclusively, namely, Washington, D.C., does not com- mend itself to tion, show, ques- California. The statistics without aggravated that Washington, has more D.C. assaults any city corresponding than size States, United prowl where armed marauders at night, streets where no nighttime—where sensible woman dares walk at an atmos- phere pervades public lawlessness even schools. And a look at the crime statistics of this area (California) will indicate that ever since apparently the courts have embraced philosophy superior rights for inferiors or criminals, public the law-abiding drastically. has suffered rights of those accused of para- crimes should not be superior rights mount and law-abiding decent community. engage citizens It nothing is to short *14 duplicity say of to that the rule of Dorado will seriously not hamper law effective enforcement in California—and the penalty effect, in Ias have heretofore indicated, is visited public. right duty have the to conduct reasonable interrogations persons charged of with duty crime—it ais regardless have, will of Court decisions, and totally it manifestly is unrealistic and unfair dangerous expound procedure to rules of conduct or to which the possibly strictly cannot adhere while at the same per- time forming fulfilling their duties and responsibilities their expected people of them the community. decent grasping anything support This business of to a reversal (the in a criminal error) gotten case search for to the point justice absurdity of perverted where respect is for justice the administration of is nil. any support If is needed assertion, only for that point I general disrespect to the authority specifically for disrespect for law repeatedly enforcement officerwho is acting assaulted in duty. while the line of join I in refuse to what I think is a most unfortunate judicial of give guilty
trend decisions strain which vastly protection law-abiding not same but more than citizen receives. contrary Furthermore, Dorado, appellate to the rule of of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, courts Wisconsin, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New York Jersey and New have in held of effect that the rule is as Escobedo of stated it, namely, the United States that the refusal of suspect’s indispensable request counsel is an condition for the new rule. constitutional Admittedly, newly this so-called discovered constitutional right something in uncovered Dorado is which no other court past years in the has ever before found. It seems to me rights magnitude which reach constitutional in 1965 surely significance must have been of some size sometime during years the last 100 at least to the extent that one appellate court the land would have observed such a opinion and so declared it. There is such no the books unwilling which can am I find. I attribute to all of the justices appellate appellate of all courts the United past years in the such States blindness. thought voluntary If free is that confessions should longer prosecution no be used or available in the eases, be trial of it would far better to so announce in so many words and have done with it. The use confessions not, however, by any whittling process put should down be plan—in out of existence on the words, installment other use of penalty confessions should meet fate the death has met. investigation activity of criminal
An and the trial of a sus- pect truth, competent be a all should search and relevant evidence admitted before the trier fact to the justice might prevail public protected. end that Nothing would be than worse to have no fixed doctrine in precise guidelines duty the decisions and no for those whose law. to enforce the is saying every ought It an old criminal is have certainly day court, it, nothing and he should have but it is appellant having for the ease, short of ridiculous days many, many now, in court to had his be turned loose possibility innocence, there even a not because remote of his *15 police teach the but to lesson. refreshing seem, greatly would How how enhanced respect justice, if appellate the administration personal area of at will in the limitless not roam would courts make decrees under philosophy, but would their beliefs language constitution. plain any decree which a coauthor respectfully decline I emancipation proclamation self- equivalent my opin- degree murderer, who, coldblooded, first confessed every legal advantage resource whose had the ion, rule of properly within the Escobedo. come matter does not for the third time. affirm the I would hearing by Supreme Court petition for a Respondent’s J., Schauer, J.,* were McComb, May 26, 1965. denied petition granted. should be opinion that of the Dist., Div. Three. Mar. No. 27641. Second 1965.] [Civ. al., Appellants, MEYER et Plaintiffs HENRY COMPANY, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE PACIFIC Respondent. Defendant assign- sitting under Justice *Retired Associate Council.
ment the Chairman Judicial