Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Greenwald v. Wisconsin

20 L. Ed. 2d 77

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1968-04-01
Topic: general

holding that a confession was involuntary where officers questioned the defendant for more than 18 hours while depriving him of food, sleep and medication | holding that a confession was involuntary where officers questioned the defendant for more than 18 hours while depriving him of food, sleep and medication | concluding defendant’s confession was involuntary because officers interrogated defendant for over eighteen hours, without food or sleep | "Considering the totality of these circumstances, we do not think it credible that petitioner's statements were the product of his free and rational choice" | “Considering the totality of these circumstances, we do not think it credible that petitioner’s statements were the product of his free and rational choice” | declining to address a component of the defendant's ground for review because he did not present the issue to the court of appeals | finding a 24 confession to be involuntary where a medicated defendant was questioned for over eighteen hours 25 and was deprived of food and sleep | Court considered lack of sleep a factor in its determination that confession not "the product of his free and rational choice" | interrogation of a defendant suffering from high blood pressure and deprived of sleep, food, and medication | interrogation of a defendant suffering from high blood pressure and deprived of sleep, food, and medication | confession involuntary where defendant was interrogated for over 18 hours without food, sleep, or necessary medication | confession held to be involuntary in part because defendant interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep | interrogation of a defendant suffering from high blood pressure and deprived of sleep, food, and medication | suspect’s statements involuntary in part because he was interrogated without access to his high blood pressure medication | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep | confession involuntary when the suspect, while on medication, was interrogated for over eighteen hours without food, medication, or sleep, and was denied requested counsel | interrogation of a defendant suffering from high blood pressure and deprived of sleep, food, and medication | defendant’s lack of sleep cited as one of several factors supporting finding of involuntariness | confession must be the "product of his free and rational choice" | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over eighteen hours without food or sleep | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over eighteen hours without food or sleep | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep | defendant, on medication, interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep | confession must be the “product of his free and rational choice” | police withheld food and prevented sleep during eighteen-hour interrogation | no medication offered for high blood pressure | no medication offered for high blood pressure

Citator

Cited by: 134 opinions

Per Curiam.

Petitioner was charged with two burglaries and one attempted burglary. He entered pleas of not guilty to each count. Before trial, petitioner requested a hearing on the voluntariness of certain oral admissions and a written confession he had given while in police custody. The hearing was held and the trial court found that the statements had been voluntarily made. Petitioner waived jury trial. The statements were admitted in evidence and he was convicted on all three counts. On each of them he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of not more than five years, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, on appeal, affirmed the convictions. It agreed with the trial court that the statements in question were voluntary. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. We grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant the writ, and reverse the judgment below.

Petitioner, who has a ninth-grade education, was arrested on suspicion of burglary shortly before 10:45 on the evening of January 20, 1965. He was taken to a *520 police station. He was suffering from high blood pressure, a condition for which he was taking medication twice a day. Petitioner had last taken food and medication, before his arrest, at 4 p. m. He did not have medication with him at the time of the arrest. At the police station petitioner was interrogated from 10:45 until midnight. He was not advised of his constitutional rights. Petitioner repeatedly denied guilt. No incriminating statements were made at this time.

Petitioner was booked and fingerprinted and, sometime after 2 a. m., he was taken to a cell in the city jail. A plank fastened to the wall served as his bed. Petitioner claims he did not sleep. At 6 a. m., petitioner was led from the cell to a “bullpen.” At 8:30 he was placed in a lineup. At 8:45, his interrogation recommenced. It was conducted by several officers at a time, in a small room. Petitioner testified that in the course of the morning he was not offered food and that he continued to be without medication. For an hour or two he refused to answer any questions. When he did speak, it was to deny, once again, his guilt.

Sometime after 10 a. m., petitioner was asked to write out a confession. He refused, stating that “it was against my constitutional rights” and that he was “entitled to have a lawyer.” These statements were ignored. No further reference was made to an attorney, by petitioner or by the police officers.

At about 11 a. m. petitioner began a series of oral admissions culminating in a full oral confession at about 11:30. At noon he was offered food. The confession was reduced to writing around 1 p. m. Just before the confession was reduced to writing, petitioner was advised of his constitutional rights. According to his testimony, he confessed because “I knew they weren’t going to leave me alone until I did.”

It is our duty, in a case such as this, to make an examination of the record in order to ascertain whether peti *521 tioner’s statements were voluntary.* See Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737, 741-742 (1966). We believe that, considering the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the statements, see Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967), it was error for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to conclude that they were voluntarily made. We reach this decision as in Clewis, without reference to disputed testimony taken at the pretrial hearing.

All of the above recited facts are, under our decisions, relevant to the claim that the statements were involuntary: the lack of counsel, especially in view of the accused’s statement that he desires counsel (see Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730, 735 (1966); cf. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964)); the lack of food, sleep, and medication (see Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967)); the lack or inadequacy of warnings as to constitutional rights (see Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 630 (1961); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730 (1966)). Considering the totality of these circumstances, we do not think it credible that petitioner’s statements were the product of his free and rational choice.

Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed.

Petitioner’s trial began before the date of our decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Although petitioner’s trial was after the date of our decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), we need not and do not decide whether that decision would, in itself, require reversal of petitioner’s convictions. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966).