Without informing him of his absolute right to remain silent in the face of this accusation, the police urged him to make a statement. Bram v. Petitioner, a layman, was undoubtedly unaware that, under Illinois law, an admission of "mere" complicity in the murder plot was legally as damaging as an admission of firing of the fatal shots.
Illinois v. Escobedo, 28 Ill. The "guiding hand of counsel" was essential to advise petitioner of his rights in this delicate situation. Powell v. Alabama, U. This was the "stage when legal aid and advice" were most critical to petitioner. Massiah v. United States, supra, at U.
It was a stage surely as critical as was the arraignment in Hamilton v. Maryland, U. What happened at this interrogation could certainly "affect the whole trial," Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, at U.
It would exalt form over substance to make the right to counsel, under these circumstances, depend on whether, at the time of the interrogation, the authorities had secured a formal indictment. Petitioner had, for all practical purposes, already been charged with murder. In People v. Donovan, 13 N.
The court observed that it. In Gideon v. In re Groban , U. They can't escape the noose. There is nothing that counsel can do for them at the trial. Ex parte Sullivan, F. It is argued that, if the right to counsel is afforded prior to indictment, the number of confessions obtained by the police will diminish significantly, because most confessions are obtained during the period between arrest and indictment, [ Footnote 10 ] and "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.
Indiana, U. This argument, of course, cuts two ways. The fact that many confessions are obtained during this period points up its critical nature as a "stage when legal aid and advice" are surely needed. Alabama, supra; White v. Maryland, supra. The right to counsel would indeed be hollow if it began at a period when few confessions were obtained. There is necessarily a direct relationship between the importance of a stage to the police in their quest for a confession and the criticalness of that stage to the accused in his need for legal advice.
Our Constitution, unlike some others, strikes the balance in favor of the right of the accused to be advised by his lawyer of his privilege against self-incrimination. See Note, 73 Yale L. We have learned the lesson of history, ancient and modern, that a system of criminal law enforcement. As Dean Wigmore so wisely said:. The inclination develops to rely mainly upon such evidence, and to be satisfied with an incomplete investigation of the other sources.
The exercise of the power to extract answers begets a forgetfulness of the just limitations of that power. The simple and peaceful process of questioning breeds a readiness to resort to bullying and to physical force and torture. If there is a right to an answer, there soon seems to be a right to the expected answer -- that is, to a confession of guilt. Thus, the legitimate use grows into the unjust abuse; ultimately, the innocent are jeopardized by the encroachments of a bad system.
Such seems to have been the course of experience in those legal systems where the privilege was not recognized. Haynes v. Washington, U. We have also learned the companion lesson of history that no system of criminal justice can, or should, survive if it comes to depend for its continued effectiveness on the citizens' abdication through unawareness of their constitutional rights.
No system worth preserving should have to fear that, if an accused is permitted to consult with a lawyer, he will become aware of, and exercise, these rights. We hold, therefore, that where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect.
In that case, the Court merely rejected the absolute rule sought by petitioner, that. Emphasis in original. In its place, the following rule was announced:. Emphasis added. The Court, applying "these principles" to "the sum total of the circumstances [there] during the time petitioner was without counsel," id. Among the critical circumstances which distinguish that case from this one are that the petitioner there, but not here, was explicitly advised by the police of his constitutional right to remain silent and.
The Court's opinion in Cicenia v. In any event, to the extent that Cicenia or Crooker may be inconsistent with the principles announced today, they are not to be regarded as controlling. Nothing we have said today affects the powers of the police to investigate "an unsolved crime," Spano v. We hold only that, when the process shifts from investigatory to accusatory -- when its focus is on the accused and its purpose is to elicit a confession -- our adversary system begins to operate, and, under the circumstances here, the accused must be permitted to consult with his lawyer.
The judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is reversed, and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Petitioner testified that this ambiguous gesture "could have meant most anything," but that he "took it upon [his] own to think that [the lawyer was telling him] not to say anything," and that the lawyer "wanted to talk" to him.
Repealed as of Jan. Compare Haynes v. Tennessee, U. Although there is testimony in the record that petitioner and his lawyer had previously discussed what petitioner should do in the event of interrogation, there is no evidence that they discussed what petitioner should, or could, do in the face of a false accusation that he had fired the fatal bullets. The English Judges' Rules also recognize that a functional, rather than a formal, test must be applied, and that, under circumstances such as those here, no special significance should be attached to formal indictment.
The applicable Rule does not permit the police to question an accused, except in certain extremely limited situations not relevant here, at any time after the defendant "has been charged or informed that he my be prosecuted. Although voluntary statements obtained in violation of these rules are not automatically excluded from evidence, the judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, exclude them.
It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel, and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law. See Broeder, Wong Sun v. The Soviet criminal code does not permit a lawyer to be present during the investigation. The Soviet trial has thus been aptly described as "an appeal from the pretrial investigation.
See also Miller v. United States, F. Persons [denied access to counsel] are incapable of providing the challenges that are indispensable to satisfactory operation of the system. The loss to the interests of accused individuals, occasioned by these failures, are great and apparent. It is also clear that a situation in which persons are required to contest a serious accusation but are denied access to the tools of contest is offensive to fairness and equity.
Beyond these considerations, however, is the fact that [this situation is] detrimental to the proper functioning of the system of justice, and that the loss in vitality of the adversary system thereby occasioned significantly endangers the basic interests of a free community. The accused may, of course, intelligently and knowingly waive his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel either at a pretrial stage or at the trial.
See Johnson v. Zerbst, U. But no knowing and intelligent waiver of any constitutional right can be said to have occurred under the circumstances of this case. The authority of Cicenia v. I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois on the basis of Cicenia v. I think this case is directly controlled by Cicenia v. In that case, a federal grand jury had indicted Massiah. He had retained a lawyer and entered a formal plea of not guilty.
Under our system of federal justice, an indictment and arraignment are followed by a trial, at which the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the assistance of counsel. We held that the use of these statements against him at his trial denied him the basic protections of the Sixth Amendment guarantee. Putting to one side the fact that the case now before us is not a federal case, the vital fact remains that this case does not involve the deliberate interrogation of a defendant after the initiation of judicial proceedings against him.
The Court disregards this basic difference between the present case and Massiah's, with the bland assertion that "that fact should make no difference. It is "that fact," I submit, which makes all the difference. Under our system of criminal justice, the institution of formal, meaningful judicial proceedings, by way of indictment, information, or arraignment, marks the. It is at this point that the constitutional guarantees attach which pertain to a criminal trial.
Among those guarantees are the right to a speedy trial, the right of confrontation, and the right to trial by jury. Escobedo demanded to confront his coconspirator, and when he was brought face-to-face with him he said, "I didn't shoot Manuel Escobedo's brother-in-law , you did it.
Escobedo appealed his conviction, claiming his confession was obtained without his lawyer being present in violation of his right to counsel, and should be thrown out. Escobedo's case reached the Supreme Court at a precipitous time. Unknown to the defendant, his accomplice was working with the police. The Court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated because the police had used the accomplice to elicit incriminatory statements after the right to counsel had attached.
The Supreme Court in Escobedo reached a similar result in a 5 to 4 decision. In overturning Escobedo's conviction and ruling that his right to counsel had been violated, Goldberg then enunciated a somewhat complicated holding that set out numerous benchmarks in determining whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated.
Wrote Goldberg: "We hold, therefore, that where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied 'The Assistance of Counsel' in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as 'made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment,' and that no statement elicited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial.
The high court decision in Escobedo had many observers theorizing the Court would try to establish a broad right to counsel utilizing the Sixth Amendment whenever police took a suspect into custody. A constitution which guarantees a defendant the aid of counsel at trial could surely vouchsafe no less to an indicted defendant under interrogation by the police in a completely extrajudicial proceeding.
Anything less might deny a defendant effective representation by counsel at the only stage when legal aid and advice would help him. Petitioner was convicted for murder. He appealed alleging that, while being interrogated in police custody, he asked to speak with his lawyer, but the request was denied.
0コメント