BREWER v. WILLIAMS (WILLIAMS I) 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977)
Facts: The defendant had recently escaped from a mental hospital and was staying at a Des Moines YMCA where the girl was last seen. The defendant was seen leaving the YMCA with a large bundle with two small legs protruding from it. A warrant for his arrest was issued, and his attorney in Des Moines advised the defendant to turn himself in to the nearby Davenport authorities. The defendant had counsel in Davenport as well. Both attorneys advised the defendant not to speak to the officers without their presence, and he indicated on several occasions to officers that he wished to talk only with the assistance of counsel. During the ride back to Des Moines, with only an officer and the defendant in the car, the officer decided to leverage his knowledge of the defendant’s religious nature by mentioning that he hoped they found the body before snowfall so they could give her a decent Christian burial. The defendant then gave the officer the location of the body. Subsequently, Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. The trial judge denied Williams’ motion to suppress all evidence resulting from his statements made in the police car, holding that the officer’s “Christian burial speech” amounted to interrogation but that Williams had waived his right to have an attorney present. Applying the totality of the circumstances test to hold that Williams had waived his right to counsel, the state supreme court affirmed. The federal district court granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus holding that as a matter of law the evidence resulting from Williams’ statements made in the car were wrongly admitted at trial. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the state failed to establish that Williams intentionally waived his right to have counsel present.
Facts: The defendant had recently escaped from a mental hospital and was staying at a Des Moines YMCA where the girl was last seen. The defendant was seen leaving the YMCA with a large bundle with two small legs protruding from it. A warrant for his arrest was issued, and his attorney in Des Moines advised the defendant to turn himself in to the nearby Davenport authorities. The defendant had counsel in Davenport as well. Both attorneys advised the defendant not to speak to the officers without their presence, and he indicated on several occasions to officers that he wished to talk only with the assistance of counsel. During the ride back to Des Moines, with only an officer and the defendant in the car, the officer decided to leverage his knowledge of the defendant’s religious nature by mentioning that he hoped they found the body before snowfall so they could give her a decent Christian burial. The defendant then gave the officer the location of the body. Subsequently, Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. The trial judge denied Williams’ motion to suppress all evidence resulting from his statements made in the police car, holding that the officer’s “Christian burial speech” amounted to interrogation but that Williams had waived his right to have an attorney present. Applying the totality of the circumstances test to hold that Williams had waived his right to counsel, the state supreme court affirmed. The federal district court granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus holding that as a matter of law the evidence resulting from Williams’ statements made in the car were wrongly admitted at trial. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the state failed to establish that Williams intentionally waived his right to have counsel present.
Issue:
1. Whether the defendant, Robert Williams, was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during the car ride from Davenport to Des Moines.
2. Whether Williams waived his right to counsel by making incriminating statements to Detective Leaming during the trip.
Rule:
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at critical stages of the criminal process, including after formal judicial proceedings have been initiated against a defendant. A waiver of this right must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Courts apply a strict standard to determine waiver and indulge every reasonable presumption against it.
Application:
1. Denial of Right to Counsel
- Judicial proceedings had been initiated against Williams before the trip, as he had been arraigned, advised of his rights, and had counsel (both McKnight and Kelly).
- Despite an agreement between Williams' counsel and the police that Williams would not be questioned during the trip, Detective Leaming deliberately elicited incriminating statements from Williams using the "Christian burial speech."
- This conduct was aimed at obtaining information without the presence of counsel, which the courts recognize as a violation of the right to counsel established in cases such as Massiah v. United States. In Massiah, evidence obtained through deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements in the absence of counsel after indictment was deemed inadmissible.
2. Waiver of Right to Counsel
- The Iowa courts found that Williams had waived his right to counsel, focusing on the absence of a request for counsel during the trip.
- The federal courts disagreed, holding that the standard for waiver was not met. Williams had consistently relied on the advice of counsel and had been assured by his attorneys and the police that he would not be questioned until he saw his attorney in Des Moines.
- Williams’ statements indicating that he would speak after consulting with McKnight showed his reliance on counsel, not a waiver of his right. The District Court and Court of Appeals found that the State did not meet its heavy burden to show a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that Williams was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Detective Leaming's actions during the car ride constituted deliberate elicitation of incriminating information in the absence of counsel, violating Williams' constitutional rights. Additionally, there was no valid waiver of Williams' right to counsel, as the record did not support an intentional relinquishment of this known right. Therefore, the use of Williams' statements against him at trial was unconstitutional, necessitating a new trial.
Concurrence:
Justice Thurgood Marshall: the detective who gave the "Christian burial" speech knowingly set out to violate Williams’ constitutional rights. The nature of the crime was not an excuse for the detective’s behavior.
Justice Lewis F. Powell: the record clearly showed that Williams had not waived his rights.
Justice John Paul Stevens: the state had promised not to question Williams before he reached Des Moines, and the state could not dishonor that promise made to Williams’ lawyer.
Dissent:
Chief Justice Warren Burger: Williams validly waived his right to counsel, and even if he had not, the disclosures he made were voluntary and uncoerced. The defendant was reminded of his rights multiple times and chose to waive them when he disclosed the body. Under the majority’s reasoning, a suspect can never waive his rights to counsel.
- Concurrence. Justice Lewis Powell directed his remarks to J. Burger’s dissent, and emphasized that a suspect could still waive his right to counsel, but the evidence here indicated that the defendant did not waive his rights.
Justice Byron White: The facts of the case indicate that the defendant knew of his rights and knowingly and voluntarily waived them. The officer’s statements do not amount to coercion.
Justice Harry Blackmun disagreed with the majority’s version of the facts. J. Blackmun believed that not every comment should be seen as interrogation, and the circumstances here (a missing girl that may still be found alive) would mandate a heightened need for finding the girl. He would remand the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Williams made the incriminating statements voluntarily
Feedback:
The location of the body was admitted based on the inevitable discovery exception
- The inevitable discovery exception permits the introduction of illegally obtained evidence if the prosecutor can prove that such evidence would have been lawfully discovered in the course of a routine, predictable investigation.
- The body would’ve been found anyway even without the confession
The right to counsel is trigged when the criminal proceeding begins
From what point does the criminal proceeding start?