Quartararo v. Mantello
1989 WL 67759, 715 F. Supp. 449, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7054 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession is involuntary and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when, under the totality of the circumstances, it is obtained through coercive police tactics such as lengthy incommunicado interrogation, deception, and promises of leniency, especially when the suspect is a juvenile. Subsequent confessions are also inadmissible if they are tainted by the initial coerced confession, and this taint is not dissipated by the belated administration of Miranda warnings.
Facts:
- On April 20, 1979, thirteen-year-old John Pius, Jr. was murdered.
- Eight days later, on April 28, 1979, police stopped a car containing Peter Quartararo, who was then fifteen years old.
- Police denied Quartararo's companion's request to drive his own car to the station and instead transported Quartararo in a police vehicle.
- At the precinct, Quartararo was placed in a juvenile aid room and subjected to approximately four hours of continuous, incommunicado interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights or that he was free to leave.
- During the interrogation, Detective Palumbo told Quartararo that he was morally obligated to cooperate, falsely claimed that a friend was confessing and implicating him, and suggested that because of his youth, "nothing is going to happen to you."
- Following these tactics and a trip to the crime scene, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Quartararo made his first inculpatory statement, admitting his involvement in the murder.
- Immediately following this admission, Detective Palumbo gave a paraphrased Miranda warning and obtained a second, secretly tape-recorded confession.
- Later that evening, after his mother arrived, police prompted Quartararo to repeat his confession a third time, which he did before quickly recanting.
Procedural Posture:
- Approximately seven months after the murder, Peter Quartararo was indicted by a grand jury.
- Quartararo filed a pre-trial motion in the Suffolk County Court (trial court) to suppress his confessions, which was denied.
- Following a six-week jury trial in Suffolk County Court, Quartararo was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree.
- Quartararo appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department (intermediate appellate court), which unanimously affirmed the conviction.
- The Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (highest state court) denied Quartararo's application for leave to appeal.
- Quartararo then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do coercive police tactics, including lengthy incommunicado interrogation without Miranda warnings, deception, and promises of leniency, render a juvenile's series of confessions involuntary and inadmissible under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Korman, District Judge
Yes, the coercive police tactics rendered the juvenile's confessions involuntary and inadmissible. A confession is involuntary when the techniques used to extract it are incompatible with a system that presumes innocence. The court applied a 'totality of the circumstances' analysis and found that Quartararo's confessions were unconstitutionally coerced. Key factors included his young age (just under 16), his lack of prior experience with the criminal justice system, the lengthy incommunicado interrogation without Miranda warnings, and most critically, the deceptive police tactics. Detective Palumbo's lies that a friend was confessing and implicating Quartararo, combined with a promise of leniency (that 'nothing is going to happen'), were calculated to break the suspect's will. These actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of fundamental fairness, making the first confession involuntary. The second and third confessions were also inadmissible because they were tainted by the primary coercion. The belated Miranda warnings were insufficient to dissipate the effect of the prior promise of leniency, as Quartararo likely believed he had little to lose by repeating a confession he thought would not result in serious consequences.
Analysis:
This case provides a strong application of the totality of the circumstances test for determining the voluntariness of a confession, especially for a juvenile suspect. It reinforces the principle that psychological coercion, through deception and promises of leniency, can be as constitutionally impermissible as physical force. The decision critically distinguishes between a simple Miranda violation, which might be cured, and a Due Process violation stemming from actual coercion, whose taint is far more pervasive. This precedent underscores that courts will heavily scrutinize police interrogation tactics and that subsequent, warned confessions may be suppressed as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' if they are directly produced by an initial, unconstitutionally coerced statement.
