Spano v. New York

Spano v. New York

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Spano v. New York
ArgueDate=April 27
ArgueYear=1959
DecideDate=June 22
DecideYear=1959
FullName=Spano v. New York
USVol=360
USPage=315
Citation=Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959).
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court held that the interrogation violated Spano's 14th Amendment due process rights because Spano's confession was not voluntary.
SCOTUS=1958-1962
Majority=Warren
JoinMajority=
Concurrence= Douglas
JoinConcurrence=Black, Brennan
Concurrence2=Stewart
JoinConcurrence2=Douglas, Brennan
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"Spano v. New York", 360 U.S. 315 (1959) represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in Miranda v. Arizona. In "Spano", the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.

Prior History

Case

Spano was an immigrant in his mid-twenties with a junior high school education. He shot a person after a bar fight. He fled the crime scene and was indicted for murder while he was in hiding. Spano called Gaspar Bruno, a close friend of his who training to become a police officer. Spano told Bruno that the deceased had injured him, and that he intended to get a lawyer and turn himself in to law enforcement. Bruno relayed the information to his superiors. Spano, along with his newly appointed attorney, turned himself in the day following his conversation with Bruno.

Spano was questioned continuously for several hours and was told he could not consult with his attorney. The police provided him with dinner during his first night of questioning. The following day, Spano was transferred to another police station where questioning continued. He was again denied assistance of counsel. Bruno, upon police instructions, told Spano that he could get into trouble if Spano did not confess although Bruno's job was not really in jeopardy. Bruno approached Spano four times before Spano gave a statement; each time questioning had resumed, Spano requested assistance of counsel. Police escorted Spano to the location where they believed he had disposed of the murder weapon. While searching for the weapon, Spano confessed.

The issue was whether police violated Spano's Sixth Amendment right to counsel during interrogation. The Court did not reach the Sixth Amendment question, however, because they held that the use of the confession was inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and fundamental fairness. The Court identified six factors that together constituted police misconduct:
# Spano was relatively young and inexperienced in the criminal justice system.
# Spano was subjected to leading questions and did not make a narrative statement to police.
# He was questioned incessantly and through the night.
# Police persisted questioning him even though he said his attorney advised him to remain silent.
# Police ignored his request to contact his attorney.
# The officers used his close friend, Bruno, to manipulate him.

The Court held that the interrogation violated Spano's 14th Amendment due process rights because Spano's confession was not voluntary.

The two concurring opinions emphasized Spano's right to counsel.

Effects of the decision

"Spano" opened the door for Miranda v. Arizona. Even though the majority opinion used the traditional voluntariness analysis, the concurring opinions indicated that a person had constitutional a right to counsel, if that counsel had been retained, once the person is formally charged by indictment or information. The majority opinion did not preclude the right to counsel argument expressed in the concurring opinions.

Subsequent history

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 360

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=360&invol=315 Findlaw.com]


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно решить контрольную?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • New York Islanders — 2011 12 New York Islanders season Conference …   Wikipedia

  • New York Islanders — Gründung 6. Juni 1972 Geschichte New York Islanders seit 1972 Stadion …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • New York State Assembly — New York State Legislature Type Type …   Wikipedia

  • New York State Legislature — Type Type Bicameral Houses …   Wikipedia

  • New York state elections, 2010 — Elections in New York Federal offices Presidential elections 1996 · 2000 · 2004  …   Wikipedia

  • New York state elections, 2008 — Elections in New York Federal offices Presidential elections 1996 · 2000 · 2004  …   Wikipedia

  • Westchester County, New York — Westchester County redirects here. For the eponymous ship, see USS Westchester County (LST 1167). Westchester County, New York …   Wikipedia

  • Politics of New York — The Politics of New York State tend to be more liberal than in most of the rest of the United States (except New England states for example), with in recent decades a solid majority of Democratic voters, concentrated in New York City and its… …   Wikipedia

  • Comté de Kings (New York) — Brooklyn Brooklyn (Kings County) …   Wikipédia en Français

  • List of members of the New York State Assembly — The New York State Assembly has 150 members elected for two year terms. The current party composition of the Assembly is:Leadership information{| table border= 1 cellpadding= 2 ! Position !! Name !! Party !! Residence !! District Speaker ||… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”