Yes. The police broke the rules. Looking at everything that happened, it's clear Spano didn't confess freely. He was emotionally unstable, questioned for 8 hours overnight, wasn't allowed to see his lawyer, and was tricked by his own friend who was being used by the police. Because he had already been officially charged, the police weren't just investigating; they were trying to force a confession to guarantee a conviction. All this pressure broke his will, making the confession unfair and illegal to use.

Yes, and there's a simpler, more important reason. Once a person has been formally charged with a crime (indicted), the police should not be allowed to question them at all without their lawyer present. Questioning someone in secret after they've been charged is like having a mini-trial in a police station, which is completely against the Constitution.

Yes. The fact that he was denied a lawyer is all that matters. If the Constitution promises you a lawyer in a public courtroom, it definitely should protect you from being grilled by police all night in a squad room without one, especially after you've been charged with murder.

No, it was not okay to use Spano's confession because the police got it in a way that went against the Constitution. They put a lot of pressure on Spano, made him very tired, and tricked him using his friend, even after he was charged with the crime. They ignored him when he asked for his lawyer and used unfair methods. The Court says the confession can't be used because it wasn't given freely. The Court believes the police have to follow the law while enforcing it, and using illegal ways to convict people is as bad as the crimes themselves.

I agree with the Court, but I think there's an even bigger reason why this is wrong. Not having a lawyer there when the police secretly questioned Spano after he was charged, and after he asked for a lawyer, goes against the idea that people have a right to a lawyer to help prepare for their trial. This secret questioning by the police basically takes away Spano's right to have a lawyer defend him and replaces the public trial that the Bill of Rights promises.

I agree with the Court, but I think just the fact that Spano's lawyer wasn't there when he confessed should be enough to make the confession inadmissible under the Constitution. Spano had an absolute right to have a lawyer help him at every step because this was a case where he could get the death penalty. What happened after he turned himself in wasn't a proper court hearing, but an all-night questioning where the police kept saying no when he asked for his lawyer. If the Constitution promises a lawyer for a trial, it should definitely promise the same for a person being questioned in a police station in the middle of the night.

No, it was not okay to use Spano's confession because the police got it in a way that went against the Constitution. They put a lot of pressure on Spano, made him very tired, and tricked him using his friend, even after he was charged with the crime. They ignored him when he asked for his lawyer and used unfair methods. The confession can't be used because it wasn't given freely. Police have to follow the law while enforcing it, and using illegal ways to convict people is as bad as the crimes themselves.

It also turns on the deep-rooted feeling that the police must obey the law while enforcing the law; that in the end life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves.

Arkansas, "this Court has uniformly held that even though there may have been sufficient evidence, apart from the coerced confession, to support a judgment of conviction, the admission in evidence, over objection, of the coerced confession vitiates the judgment because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The abhorrence of society to the use of involuntary confessions does not turn alone on their inherent untrustworthiness

—misrepresentation by the suspect's friend that the friend would lose his job as a police officer if the suspect failed to cooperate rendered his statement involuntary

"Anything less... might deny a defendant `effective representation by counsel at the only stage when legal aid and advice would help him.'"

The Supreme Court reversed petitioner's conviction and stated that "petitioner's will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue and sympathy falsely aroused," id.

In the case of coerced confessions, the evidence may be unreliable; even if reliable, a free society cannot condone police methods that outrage the rights and dignity of a person whether they include physical brutality or psychological coercion

The question was whether the will of the defendant had been overborne so that the statement was not his free and voluntary act, and that question was to be resolved in light of the totality of the circumstances.

The Court finds that the length of Defendant's interrogations and that he was held incommunicado before it was over favors a finding of involuntariness.[19]

—the police ignored the defendant's requests to contact an attorney whom he had retained, and they continued to question the defendant for approximately eight hours until they obtained a confession.

Yes. The confession was obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because the defendant's will was overborne by the totality of the circumstances. The Court's analysis considered several factors: Spano was a 25-year-old foreign-born man with a history of emotional instability and no prior criminal record. He was subjected to eight straight hours of continuous, overnight interrogation by a large team of officials. Critically, his repeated and reasonable requests to see the attorney who had just surrendered him were denied. The most significant factor was the use of his childhood friend, Bruno, as a police agent to play on his sympathies with false stories, which constituted a form of coercive psychological pressure. Because Spano had already been indicted, the police were not investigating an unsolved crime but were focused solely on securing a confession for conviction, an action that demands the 'most careful scrutiny'.

Yes. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion, the more important ground for reversal is that any secret interrogation of an accused person after indictment and without counsel present violates the right to counsel. Once formal proceedings have begun with an indictment, the accused has a right to counsel during all critical stages, including interrogation. Depriving an indicted defendant of counsel during pretrial questioning is a flagrant violation of the principles of Powell v. Alabama, as it effectively allows a 'secret trial in the police precincts' to supplant the public trial guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Yes. The absence of counsel when this confession was elicited was alone enough to render it inadmissible. Once a defendant is under indictment for a capital crime, the right to a lawyer's help is absolute at every stage. An all-night inquisition in a police station after indictment, during which repeated requests for counsel are denied, is a clear constitutional violation. A Constitution that guarantees the assistance of counsel in an orderly courtroom cannot permit less for the same person during a 'midnight inquisition in the squad room of a police station.'

Yes, the confession was obtained in a manner that violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Spano's will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue, and sympathy falsely aroused, considering all the facts in their post-indictment setting. The police ignored his requests to contact his attorney and used deceptive tactics involving a close friend. The conviction cannot stand under the Fourteenth Amendment because the confession was involuntary. The Court's decision is rooted in the principle that the police must obey the law while enforcing it and that the use of illegal methods to convict individuals is as dangerous to liberty as the criminal acts themselves.

I agree with the Court's opinion, but I believe there is an even more important ground for decision. The absence of counsel during the secret interrogation of an indicted defendant, when he requested and was denied counsel, is a flagrant violation of the principle that the right to counsel extends to the preparation for trial. This secret inquisition by the police effectively denies the accused representation by counsel at a critical stage and supplants the public trial guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I concur in the Court's opinion, but in my view, the absence of counsel when the confession was elicited was alone enough to render it inadmissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner had an absolute right to a lawyer's help at every stage of the proceedings, as this was a capital case. What followed his surrender was not an arraignment in court, but an all-night inquisition where his requests for counsel were repeatedly denied. A Constitution that guarantees the assistance of counsel at trial can vouchsafe no less to the same man under midnight inquisition in a police station.

Yes, the confession was obtained in a manner that violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Spano's will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue, and sympathy falsely aroused, considering all the facts in their post-indictment setting. The police ignored his requests to contact his attorney and used deceptive tactics involving a close friend. The conviction cannot stand under the Fourteenth Amendment because the confession was involuntary. Our decision is rooted in the principle that the police must obey the law while enforcing it and that the use of illegal methods to convict individuals is as dangerous to liberty as the criminal acts themselves.

Spano v. New York

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot