Greenwald v. Wisconsin
20 L. Ed. 2d 77, 390 U.S. 519, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2064 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession is involuntary, and therefore inadmissible under the Due Process Clause, when the totality of the circumstances indicates that it was not the product of the suspect's free and rational choice.
Facts:
- On January 20, 1965, a petitioner with a ninth-grade education and high blood pressure was arrested for burglary around 10:45 p.m.
- At the time of his arrest, petitioner had not eaten or taken his medication since 4:00 p.m. and did not have his medication with him.
- He was interrogated from 10:45 p.m. until midnight, during which he consistently denied his guilt.
- After 2 a.m., he was placed in a cell with only a plank for a bed, where he claimed he did not sleep.
- The next morning at 8:45 a.m., interrogation recommenced by several officers in a small room; petitioner was not offered food and remained without medication.
- Around 10 a.m., when asked to write a confession, petitioner refused, stating it was 'against my constitutional rights' and that he was 'entitled to have a lawyer'; this request was ignored by the officers.
- Beginning around 11 a.m., petitioner made a series of oral admissions, culminating in a full oral confession at 11:30 a.m.
- Petitioner was offered food at noon, and just before his confession was written down around 1 p.m., he was advised of his constitutional rights for the first time. He later stated he confessed because he 'knew they weren't going to leave me alone until I did.'
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner was charged with two burglaries and one attempted burglary in a Wisconsin state trial court.
- Prior to trial, the trial court held a voluntariness hearing and ruled that the petitioner's oral admissions and written confession were admissible.
- Following a bench trial where the petitioner waived his right to a jury, he was convicted on all three counts.
- The petitioner appealed his convictions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the confession was voluntary.
- The petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
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 admission of a confession violate due process where it was obtained after prolonged interrogation during which the suspect was deprived of food, sleep, and medication, and his request for counsel was ignored?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the admission of the confession violated due process. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the petitioner's statements were not the product of his free and rational choice and were therefore involuntary. The court identified several key factors demonstrating coercion: the lack of food, sleep, and necessary medication; the inadequacy of warnings as to his constitutional rights; and most significantly, the failure to provide counsel after the petitioner explicitly stated his desire for a lawyer. Citing Clewis v. Texas, the court emphasized that all of these circumstances, viewed together, made it incredible that the petitioner's confession was voluntary.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
No, the confession was not involuntary as a matter of law. The petitioner was nearly 30 years old, familiar with the criminal justice system, and the interrogation periods were not excessively long. Crucially, the petitioner himself testified that he was aware of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have an attorney, even though the police did not explicitly inform him of them initially. He also never expressed a desire for food or medication to the officers. The state courts, applying a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, found the confession to be a 'free and deliberate choice,' and their thorough findings should not be overturned, especially when the Court raised the coercion issue on its own motion without allowing the state to argue it.
Analysis:
This case is a significant application of the pre-Miranda 'totality of the circumstances' test for determining the voluntariness of a confession under the Due Process Clause. It establishes that a combination of coercive factors—physical deprivation, psychological pressure, and ignoring a request for counsel—can render a confession inadmissible even without a single, overwhelmingly coercive act. The decision reinforces the Supreme Court's authority to conduct an independent review of the factual record in such cases. It serves as a doctrinal bridge, highlighting the problems with case-by-case voluntariness analysis that ultimately led to the Supreme Court establishing the more rigid, prophylactic warnings in Miranda v. Arizona.
