Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1941 to 1953

Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - Significance, The Constitution Bars Coerced Confessions, Supervisory Power, Impact

court petitioners supreme congressional

Petitioners

Ashcraft, Ware

Respondent

State of Tennessee

Petitioners' Claim

That the confessions used to convict the defendants were extorted from them by state law enforcement officers in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioners

James F. Bickers

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Nat Tipton

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Stanley Forman Reed, Wiley Blount Rutledge, Harlan Fiske Stone

Justices Dissenting

Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Owen Josephus Roberts

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

1 May 1944

Decision

Reversed Ashcraft's conviction and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Tennessee because if Ashcraft made a confession, it was compelled in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Related Cases

  • Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
  • Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940).
  • Lisbena v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (1941).
  • McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943).
  • Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee, 327 U.S. 274 (1946).

Further Readings

  • Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.

Additional Topics

Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - Significance

Not until 1940, in Chambers v Florida, did the Supreme Court acknowledge that psychological coercion could lead to involuntary confessions. Soon after that in Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee, the Court acknowledged that some situations were so inherently coercive that confessions gained from them were inadmissible because they were not voluntary. This case reflected the Court's desire to curb polic…

Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - The Constitution Bars Coerced Confessions

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because Ware and Ashcraft believed that the alleged confessions used at their trial had been extorted from them in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and that they had been convicted solely on the basis of the confessions. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the majority. He noted that the dispute over what actually happened to Ashcraft during the 36 ho…

Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - Supervisory Power

Justice Jackson wrote the dissent. He noted that before this case, a confession was admissible unless it was proved that the will of the confessor had been overcome by torture, mob violence, fraud, trickery, threats, or promises. Even where there was excess and abuse of power by the police, the state could still use the confession if it was found that the accused had not lost his freedom of action…

Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - Impact

In 1940, in Chambers v. Florida the Supreme Court acknowledged that psychological coercion, as well as physical torture, could produce involuntary confessions. The use of such confessions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In later decisions, such as Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee, the Court acknowledged that some situations were so inherently coercive that the confession…

Bercovici v. Chaplin: 1947 - "the Little Tramp" Plays To A Full House, Plaintiff Claims Oral Agreement, Suggestions For Further Reading [next] [back] Appendix to Appellants' Briefs - In The Supreme Court Of The United States October Term, 1952, Appendix To Appellants' Briefsthe Effects Of Segregation And The Consequences Of Desegregation: A Social Science Statementstatement Of Counsel

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or