Rogers v. Richmond, Warden
365 U.S. 534 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The admissibility of a confession under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be determined based on whether the confession was voluntary, which depends on whether the defendant's will was overborne by police conduct, without any consideration of the confession's probable truth or falsity.
Facts:
- On January 9, 1954, police arrested Rogers in connection with an attempted robbery and found a revolver in his possession.
- Ballistic tests indicated the revolver was used in a fatal liquor store robbery that occurred on November 21, 1953.
- On January 30, 1954, police transported Rogers from jail to the State's Attorney's office for questioning about the murder.
- After approximately six hours of interrogation without success, Assistant Chief of Police Eagan took over.
- Eagan pretended to place a phone call, directing other officers to prepare to bring Rogers's wife in for questioning.
- After about an hour of silence, Eagan indicated he was about to have Rogers's wife, who suffered from arthritis, taken into custody.
- At this point, Rogers announced his willingness to confess and provided a statement admitting to the shooting.
- The following morning, after his lawyer was denied access, Rogers was interrogated by the Coroner and confessed a second time.
Procedural Posture:
- Rogers was convicted of murder in the Superior Court of New Haven County, Connecticut, after the trial judge admitted his confessions into evidence.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction.
- Rogers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, which held a hearing, found the confessions involuntary, and granted the writ.
- On appeal by the state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded, instructing the judge to first review the state court record.
- On remand, the District Court reviewed the state record, found no 'vital flaw,' and dismissed the petition.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petition.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision 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 admission of a confession into evidence, based on a legal standard that considers the confession's probable truth or falsity, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes, using a legal standard that considers a confession's probable truth or falsity violates due process. A conviction based on a confession admitted under such a standard violates the Due Process Clause. The constitutional inquiry into the admissibility of a confession is not whether it is likely to be true, but whether the defendant's will was overborne by the conduct of law enforcement, rendering the confession involuntary. The American criminal justice system is accusatorial, not inquisitorial, meaning the State must establish guilt through independent evidence, not by coercing proof from the accused's own mouth. The Connecticut trial court and Supreme Court of Errors erred by focusing on whether the police artifice was 'calculated to procure an untrue statement.' This incorrect legal standard is impermissible, and its application tainted the conviction, regardless of the confession's actual reliability or whether it was, in fact, coerced. Because the state courts applied a constitutionally inadequate test, the conviction cannot stand.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
While I agree that using truth or falsity as the test for admissibility would violate due process if it actually occurred, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief merely because state courts failed to properly articulate the correct constitutional test. A constitutional violation occurs only if an involuntary confession was, in fact, admitted at trial. The proper inquiry for a federal habeas court is not the verbal test the state court applied, but whether the confession was actually coerced under Fourteenth Amendment standards. Therefore, the case should be remanded to the District Court for a plenary hearing to determine the factual question of whether Rogers's confession was truly involuntary.
Analysis:
This case is significant for definitively separating the voluntariness test for confessions from any consideration of their reliability. The Court clarified that the purpose of excluding coerced confessions under the Due Process Clause is to deter unconstitutional police conduct and protect the accusatorial nature of the justice system, not merely to prevent false evidence from being used. By focusing on the 'overborne will' of the suspect, the decision established that the method of interrogation is the central constitutional question. This precedent forces trial courts to act as gatekeepers, scrutinizing police behavior and ensuring that any confession admitted as evidence is the product of a free and unconstrained choice, irrespective of its perceived truthfulness.
