Rogers v. Richmond

365 U.S. 534 (1961)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was transported for questioning in connection with a West Haven killing. The interrogation commenced at approximately 2 p. m. of that day and continued throughout the afternoon and evening. P was allowed to smoke, was brought a sandwich and coffee, and was at no time subjected to violence or threat of violence. P remained steadfast despite being questioned by three police officers from 2 p. m. to 8 p. m. Assistant Chief of Police Eagan was called in to conduct the investigation. P persisted in his denial that he had done the shooting. The Chief pretended, in P's hearing, to place a telephone call to police officers, directing them to stand in readiness to bring in P's wife for questioning. Another hour passed without results and then the Chief announced he was about to have P's wife taken into custody. P immediately announced his willingness to confess and did confess in a statement that was taken down in shorthand by an official court reporter. P was held incommunicado at the jail. P's lawyer was turned away. P was transported to the County Court House for interrogation and warned that he might refuse to say anything further and advised that he might obtain the assistance of counsel. P again confessed to the shooting. At trial, P discredited the confessions as the product of coercion. The trial judge concluded that the confessions were voluntary and allowed them to go to the jury for consideration of the weight to be given them under all the circumstances that led to them. P was convicted. The state courts affirmed. P sought a federal writ of habeas corpus on the ground that since the confessions were secured under circumstances rendering them constitutionally inadmissible, he was denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district judge set aside the judgment of conviction. On appeal, the court vacated the District Court's judgment, finding that it was error to hold a hearing de novo on issues of basic evidentiary fact that had been considered and adjudicated by the state courts. P’s first petition for a writ of certiorari was denied. On the second trip, the district judge could not find that the confessions were the product of coercion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.