Chambers v. Florida

Last updated
Chambers v. Florida
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 4, 1940
Decided February 12, 1940
Full case nameChambers et al. v. State of Florida
Citations309 U.S. 227 ( more )
60 S. Ct. 472; 84 L. Ed. 716; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 911
Case history
PriorConviction affirmed, Chambers v. State, 136 Fla. 568, 187 So. 156 (1939); cert. granted, 308 U.S. 541(1939).
Holding
Confessions compelled by police through duress are inadmissible at trial.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds  · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
Case opinion
MajorityBlack, joined by Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas
Murphy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940), was a landmark [1] [2] United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the extent to which police pressure resulting in a criminal defendant's confession violates the Due Process Clause. [3]

Contents

Case

The case was argued on January 6, 1940, in front of the court by Thurgood Marshall (who was 31 years old at the time), representing four black men convicted for the murder of a white man in Florida.

The defendant Chambers, along with three other co-defendants, were four of up to forty transient black men arrested for the murder of Robert Darcy, an elderly local man, in Pompano Beach, Florida. The community was outraged by the murder, and the Broward County Sheriff's department was apparently under pressure to close the case. Chambers and the other defendants were taken to Miami for questioning, ostensibly to protect them from the mob that had formed, and then to Fort Lauderdale.

The state did not contest that the defendants were held without access to legal counsel, and were not arraigned for a week. They were subjected to questioning on a random basis, often alone in a room with up to ten police officers and other members of the community. In the legal climate before Miranda , they were not informed of their right to remain silent. After a week of questioning, and despite previous denials, the four co-defendants eventually confessed to the crime and were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Their convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida. [4]

Decision

On February 13, 1940, the court delivered its ruling. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Hugo Black of Alabama.

This was Marshall's first [5] of many triumphs in front of the nation's highest tribunal; the Court ruled in favor of the defendants, and overturned their convictions. The court found that on the facts admitted by the police and sheriff's officers, the confessions had clearly been compelled and were therefore inadmissible. It marked one of the first times that the court had accepted the contention that treatment short of physical violence should result in the suppression of evidence.

Several of the features of this case, such as not allowing defendants to contact anyone, holding them without formal charges or arraignment, and denying them counsel during questioning were common tactics[ where? ] in law enforcement at the time[ citation needed ] and were eventually rejected by the court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), a case in which Marshall argued on behalf of the United States government as Solicitor General of the United States. [6]

Aftermath

In subsequent proceedings before the Florida courts, the indictment against the defendants was quashed on the ground that blacks had been arbitrarily and intentionally excluded from the grand jury. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ernesto Miranda</span> American criminal and subject of a United States Supreme Court case

Ernesto Arturo Miranda was an American criminal and laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund</span> Organization in New York, United States

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is a leading United States civil rights organization and law firm based in New York City.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

The Trenton Six is the group name for six African-American defendants tried for murder of an elderly white shopkeeper in January 1948 in Trenton, New Jersey. The six young men were convicted in August 1948 by an all-white jury of the murder and sentenced to death.

Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction and death sentence imposed upon a man who confessed to murder after being detained for more than 24 hours, slapped and deprived of sleep and food. The petitioner argued that the confession was coerced, and that it violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Walter Lee Irvin, a United States Army veteran of World War II, was one of the so-called Groveland Four—four young African-American men of Lake County, Florida who, in a racially charged case, were accused of raping and assaulting a white woman. Three of the young men were convicted: Irvin was sentenced to death, as was another of the defendants; the third, a minor, was sentenced to life in prison. The fourth had fled after being accused, but a few days later and 200 miles away, was found by a posse of 1,000 white men who, on July 26, 1949, shot him over 400 times while he was asleep under a tree. No one was arrested for his murder.

The Groveland Four were four African American men, Ernest Thomas, Charles Greenlee, Samuel Shepherd, and Walter Irvin. In July 1949, the four were accused of raping a white woman and severely beating her husband in Lake County, Florida. The oldest, Thomas, tried to elude capture and was killed that month. The others were put on trial. Shepard and Irvin received death sentences, and Greenlee was sentenced to life in prison. The events of the case led to serious questions about the arrests, allegedly coerced confessions and mistreatment, and the unusual sentencing following their convictions. Their incarceration was exacerbated by their systemic and unlawful treatment—including the death of Shepherd, and the near-fatal shooting of Irvin. Greenlee was paroled in 1962 and Irvin in 1968. All four were posthumously exonerated by the state of Florida in 2021.

Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by the use of force on the part of law enforcement cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991), held that the right to counsel secured by the Sixth Amendment and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that was initiated by Francis Connelly, who insisted that his schizophrenic episode rendered him incompetent, nullifying his waiver of his Miranda rights.

Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation. In a decision written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, a waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless the accused individual initiated the communication.

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009), is a 5–4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that overruled the Court's decision in Michigan v. Jackson. The case concerned the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during a police interrogation. In reversing Jackson, the Court said such a waiver was valid.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, police must cease custodial interrogation. Re-interrogation is only permissible once defendant's counsel has been made available to him, or he himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Statements obtained in violation of this rule are a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Under Miranda v. Arizona, evidence obtained by police during interrogation of a suspect before he has been read his Miranda rights is inadmissible. Here, however, the defendant had been indicted in court and had asserted his desire to have counsel, thus his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached. At issue was whether a voluntary admission of incriminating facts in response to police statements made while the defendant was in custody and outside the presence of his lawyer constituted a waiver of this right to counsel.

Pitts and Lee v. Florida (1963) was a criminal case in which two African-American defendants were charged with murder. The case is remembered for its Civil Rights implications, and because it involved two death-row inmates who were later exonerated. The prosecutors deliberately tampered with evidence, and the men were sentenced to death by an all-white jury, Freddie Lee Pitts and Wilbert Lee were imprisoned for twelve years before being pardoned by then-Florida Governor Reubin Askew on September 20, 1975.

Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U.S. 596 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court case about the beatings and subsequent coerced confessions of William Douglas Lyons, a man convicted of a triple-murder in Oklahoma. His attorneys included Thurgood Marshall.

References

  1. Gilbert G. Garcia; Hunter J. White (February 12, 2018). "Anniversary of Chambers v. Florida: Confessions through Duress must be Suppressed". The Gilbert G. Garcia Law Firm. Archived from the original on July 20, 2020. Retrieved July 20, 2020.
  2. Klarman, Michael J. (July 31, 2007). Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement. Abridged Edition of "From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality" --> Chapter 3: Brown v. Board of Education. New York. ISBN   978-0-19-530763-4. Archived from the original on July 20, 2020. Retrieved July 20, 2020.
  3. Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940).
  4. Chambers v. State, 136 Fla. 568, 187 So. 156 (1939).
  5. "Thurgood Marshall Biography (1908–1993)". The Biography.com website. A&E Television Networks. January 11, 2021. Archived from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved January 22, 2021.
  6. See appearances of counsel listing in Miranda decision.
  7. Williamson v. Baker, 148 Fla. 387, 388-389, 4 So. 2d 471, 471-472 (1941) (discussing the Chambers case).