Brewer v. Williams

430 U.S. 387 (1977)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A 10-year-old girl named Pamela went to the YMCA to watch a wrestling tournament. When she failed to return from a trip to the washroom, a search for her began. Williams (D) who had recently escaped from a mental hospital, was a resident of the YMCA. Soon after Pamela's disappearance, D was seen in the YMCA lobby carrying some clothing and a large bundle wrapped in a blanket. He obtained help from a 14-year-old boy in opening the street door and the door to his automobile parked outside. When D placed the bundle in the front seat of his car, the boy 'saw two legs in it, and they were skinny and white.' D immediately drove away. The abandoned car was found 160 miles away. A warrant was then issued for D's arrest on a charge of abduction. A lawyer named McKnight went to the police station and informed the officers that he had just received a long-distance call from D and that he had advised D to turn himself in. D surrendered and was given the required Miranda warnings. D conversed with McKnight on the telephone. In the presence of two police officers, McKnight advised D that Des Moines police officers would be driving to Davenport to pick him up, that the officers would not interrogate him or mistreat him, and that D was not to talk to the officers about Pamela until after consulting with McKnight. Detective Leaming and a fellow officer would drive to Davenport to pick up D, that they would bring him directly back to Des Moines, and that they would not question him during the trip. D was arraigned before a judge in Davenport on the outstanding arrest warrant. The judge advised him of his Miranda rights and committed him to jail. D conferred with a lawyer named Kelly, who advised him not to make any statements until consulting with McKnight back in Des Moines. Kelly reiterated to Detective Leaming that D was not to be questioned about the disappearance of Pamela until after he had consulted with McKnight. Kelly was denied permission to ride in the police car. At no time during the trip did D express a willingness to be interrogated in the absence of an attorney. D stated several times that 'when I get to Des Moines and see Mr. McKnight, I am going to tell you the whole story.' Detective Leaming knew D was a former mental patient and knew also that he was deeply religious. The detective then gave D the 'Christian burial speech' addressing D as 'Reverend.' ' I want you to observe the weather conditions, it's raining, it's sleeting, it's freezing, driving is very treacherous, visibility is poor, it's going to be dark early this evening. They are predicting several inches of snow for tonight, and I feel that you yourself are the only person that knows where this little girl's body is, that you yourself have only been there once, and if you get a snow on top of it you yourself may be unable to find it. And, since we will be going right past the area on the way into Des Moines, I feel that we could stop and locate the body, that the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on Christmas Eve and murdered. And I feel we should stop and locate it on the way in rather than waiting until morning and trying to come back out after a snow storm and possibly not being able to find it at all.' Eventually, D said that he would show the officers where the body was. He directed the police to the body. Counsel moved to suppress all evidence relating to or resulting from any statements D had made during the automobile ride. The judge ruled that D had 'waived his right to have an attorney present during the giving of such information.' D was found guilty of murder, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. On a writ of habeas corpus, the court concluded as a matter of law that the evidence in question had been wrongly admitted. D had been denied his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel, the constitutional protections in Escobedo and his statements were involuntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.