Haynes v. Washington

373 U.S. 503 (1963)

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

D was charged with robbing a gasoline service station. D was arrested in the vicinity of the station within approximately one-half hour after the crime. D orally admitted the robbery to officers while en route to the police station, he was, on arrival there, not charged with the crime, but instead booked for 'investigation,' Prisoners held in this manner are permitted by police neither to make phone calls nor to have any visitors. D was questioned for about one-half hour and admitted the crime. He was then placed in a line-up and identified by witnesses as one of the robbers. The next morning, D was questioned for about an hour and a half. He once more orally admitted the robbery, and a written confession was transcribed. D was taken to the office of the deputy prosecutor, where still another statement was taken and transcribed. D refused to sign this second confession, but he then did sign the earlier statement. Later that same afternoon he was taken before a magistrate for a preliminary hearing. D was transferred to the county jail and about a week later was returned to the deputy prosecutor's office. He was again asked to sign the second statement which he had given there some four to six days earlier but again refused to do so. The written confession taken on the morning after his arrest and signed by Ds on the same day in the deputy prosecutor's office was introduced into evidence against D's objection. D testified that on the evening of his arrest, he made several specific requests to the police that he be permitted to call an attorney and to call his wife. Each request was refused. D was told that he might make a call if he confessed. Early in the interrogation, D asked whether he might at least talk to the prosecutor before proceeding further. He was told: 'We just want to get this down for our records, and then we will go to the prosecutor's office and he will ask the same questions that I am.' D was not taken before a magistrate and granted a preliminary hearing until he had acceded to demands that he give and sign the written statement. There is nothing in the record that prior to signing the written confession, or even thereafter, D was advised by authorities of his right to remain silent, warned that his answers might be used against him, or told of his rights respecting consultation with an attorney. Even after D signed the written confession used at trial, the police continued the incommunicado detention while persisting in efforts to secure another signature on another statement. P offered no evidence to rebut D's testimony about his detention. Under the Washington procedure then in effect, the voluntariness of the confession was treated as a question of fact for ultimate determination by the jury. The trial judge made a determination that it was voluntary and 'conditionally' admissible. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. D appealed from an affirmation of his conviction at the state level.