Cicenia v. Lagay
1958 U.S. LEXIS 668, 357 U.S. 504, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1523 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's refusal to allow a suspect to consult with their retained counsel during a pre-indictment police interrogation does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The denial of counsel is one factor to be considered in the totality of the circumstances to determine if the proceedings were fundamentally unfair.
Facts:
- On March 17, 1947, Charles Kittuah was shot and killed during a robbery of his store in Newark, New Jersey.
- In December 1949, police received information implicating Cicenia and asked him to report to the Orange police headquarters.
- Cicenia consulted with a lawyer, Frank A. Palmieri, who advised him to comply.
- Upon arriving at the police station, Cicenia was separated from his family and taken to Newark police headquarters for questioning.
- From approximately 2:00 p.m. into the evening, Cicenia's lawyer, Mr. Palmieri, was at the station and repeatedly asked to see his client, but police refused each request.
- During the same period of interrogation, Cicenia also asked to see his lawyer, and his requests were similarly denied.
- At 9:30 p.m., after hours of questioning without legal counsel, Cicenia signed a written confession to the murder.
- Only after the confession was signed were Cicenia and his lawyer permitted to confer.
Procedural Posture:
- Cicenia was indicted for murder in the Essex County Court, a state trial court.
- Cicenia moved in the trial court to suppress his confession and inspect it before trial; the court denied the motion.
- The Superior Court of New Jersey, an intermediate appellate court, dismissed Cicenia's appeal of that denial.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court, affirmed the dismissal.
- Advised by his attorney, Cicenia then pleaded non vult to the murder indictment in the trial court and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Cicenia filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the New Jersey state courts, which was denied at all levels.
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to review the state court habeas proceedings.
- Cicenia then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, which denied the petition.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the reversal of a state conviction when police deny a suspect's requests to confer with his already-retained lawyer during an interrogation that results in a confession, which then leads to a plea of non vult?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. A state's refusal to permit a suspect to confer with his retained counsel during pre-indictment interrogation does not, as a standalone fact, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that while the police conduct was distasteful, adopting an inflexible rule that state police could not interrogate a suspect without first allowing access to counsel would unduly constrict law enforcement and go against the principles of federalism. Instead, the Court applies a totality of the circumstances approach, viewing the denial of counsel as one pertinent element in determining whether a conviction was attended by fundamental unfairness. Citing the companion case of Crooker v. California, the Court declined to impose such a broad constitutional rule on the states. The Court also held that the denial of pretrial inspection of the confession did not violate due process, as it was a matter of judicial discretion under state practice.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The police conduct violated the petitioner's constitutional rights, and the conviction should be reversed. The dissent condemned the police for forming an 'insuperable barrier' between a client who wanted to see his counsel and a counsel who wanted to see his client for over seven hours. This action is contrary to the constitutional requirement for fair criminal proceedings. The dissent would reverse the judgment for the reasons articulated in the dissent of the companion case, Crooker v. California, which argued for a stronger right to counsel at the interrogation stage.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies the Supreme Court's pre-Miranda jurisprudence, which evaluated coerced confession claims under a 'totality of the circumstances' test rather than a per se rule. By refusing to establish an absolute right to counsel during police interrogation, the Court prioritized state autonomy in law enforcement over a bright-line procedural safeguard for suspects. This holding was a significant barrier for defendants arguing their rights were violated during questioning. The case's legal foundation was later eroded and effectively overruled by landmark decisions like Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established a clear right to counsel during custodial interrogations.
