Crooker v. California
1958 U.S. LEXIS 665, 357 U.S. 433, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1448 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The denial of a suspect's request to contact counsel during pre-arraignment interrogation does not, in itself, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; rather, the constitutionality of using a subsequent confession depends on the totality of the circumstances, specifically whether the denial resulted in a coerced confession or fundamental unfairness.
Facts:
- The victim, who was the paramour of petitioner Crooker, was found stabbed and strangled to death in her home on July 5, 1955.
- Crooker was a 31-year-old college graduate who had completed one year of law school.
- In the month preceding the murder, the victim had attempted several times to terminate her illicit relationship with Crooker.
- On the night of the murder, Crooker went to the victim's house, hid nearby, and watched her escort leave before she was last heard from.
- Crooker was arrested on the afternoon of July 5th and taken to the police station for questioning.
- During interrogation and prior to confessing, Crooker repeatedly asked for and was denied the opportunity to call his lawyer, being told he could do so after the investigation concluded.
- After approximately 14 hours in custody, during which he was interrogated in several sessions, Crooker wrote and signed a detailed confession.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Crooker was convicted of murder in a California state trial court and sentenced to death.
- At trial, the court admitted into evidence a confession made by Crooker, over his objection that it was coerced and obtained in violation of his right to counsel.
- The Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the due process claims.
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 use of a voluntary confession in a state criminal trial violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if the confession was obtained after police denied the suspect's request to contact his attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No, the use of the confession does not violate the Due Process Clause under these circumstances. A state's denial of a request to contact counsel during pretrial proceedings violates due process only if the suspect is so prejudiced by it that it infects the trial with a lack of fundamental fairness. The court assessed the voluntariness of the confession by looking at the totality of the circumstances. Here, the petitioner's age, intelligence, and legal education, combined with his demonstrated awareness of his right to remain silent, negated any presumption of coercion that might arise from the denial of counsel. The Court rejected a per se rule that would make any confession obtained after such a denial inadmissible, reasoning that such a rigid rule would effectively preclude all police questioning until counsel is present and is not demanded by the flexible concept of due process.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the denial of counsel and subsequent use of the confession violates the Due Process Clause. The right to the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to permit courts to speculate about the amount of prejudice resulting from its denial. The need for a lawyer is greatest in the period immediately following arrest, as a safeguard against the coercive pressures of secret police interrogation. Even an intelligent and educated layman, especially one facing a capital charge, requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step. The dissent argues that when an accused person wants a lawyer, they should have one at any time after the moment of arrest to protect against the abuses of the 'third degree' and to give meaning to the right to a fair trial.
Analysis:
This decision established that, prior to Miranda v. Arizona, there was no absolute right to counsel during pre-indictment police interrogations under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the Court applied a flexible 'totality of the circumstances' or 'fundamental fairness' test, weighing factors like the suspect's sophistication against the conduct of the police. This ruling highlighted the Court's reluctance to impose rigid procedural rules on state law enforcement. The case stands in stark contrast to later decisions like Gideon and Miranda, which would establish more concrete, bright-line rules regarding the right to counsel for criminal defendants.
