2 minute read

Brief for Respondent

Summary Of Argument



Petitioner was in no way denied his constitutional right to counsel in this case. He neither merits, nor is he reason for, the pronouncement of the broad constitutional principle which is sought.

Petitioner received a full elementary education and, although he had an emotional illness, he had sufficient mentality and emotional stability to understand what he was doing when he was doing it, and to fully appreciate all the potential consequences of his act.



Clearly there was no police brutality or any possible official overreaching in the acquisition of the statements here in question. Yet petitioner, nonetheless, portrays the police generally in the worst possible light, in attempting to justify the need for the rule he seeks. The examples of bad police activity represent the exceptions to the general rule as regards police conduct and attitude, and do not merit or require an overly broad constitutional rule which would strike down the good with the bad.

Petitioner infers that since he stood no chance of victory in the trial of the case after the statements were given, he was therefore deprived of some right. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has no such right to "win." The Constitution insures that he must not be convicted as a result of any violations of those rights which we all cherish; it doesn't insure that he won't be convicted.

The decision of the Arizona Supreme Court below rested on many factors, of which the lack of a request for counsel was but one. It determined that the totality of these factors did not result in affirmative conduct which denied petitioner his right to counsel. There was no element of waiver involved in the Arizona Court's decision.

The decision of this Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) does not require the reversal of this case. The facts are significantly different. The legal principles therein announced, considered within the context of that decision as it discusses not only the particular facts of the case but also the significance of the prior decisions of this Court on the same subject matter, implement an exclusionary rule directed to deter the police from affirmative conduct calculated, under the facts of any given case, to deny an accused from consulting with counsel. Such a rule, in proper perspective and balance, will protect the accused from any infringement of his right to counsel, while not unduly or unnecessarily curtailing the oft times essential investigative questioning of a suspect.

8 Brief of Petitioner, at 10.

9 Ibid.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972Brief for Respondent - On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Arizonabrief For Respondent, Question Presented