Monks v. New Jersey/Dissent Marshall

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
939845Monks v. New Jersey — DissentThurgood Marshall
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion
Marshall

United States Supreme Court

398 U.S. 71

Monks  v.  New Jersey

 Argued: Feb. 26, 1970. --- Decided: May 25, 1970


Mr. Justice MARSHALL, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.

Petitioner, a 15-year-old boy, was arrested at 1 o'clock in the morning of February 16, 1957, removed to the police station, and questioned by detectives for several hours about two purse-snatching incidents. He was then held in confinement in the Children's Shelter for 10 days during which time he was questioned at least three times by two detectives in the presence of a juvenile probation officer. Further questioning began on other crimes including two murders in the same area as the purse snatchings.

During the entire 10-day period this 15-year-old boy was without advice of his parents, lawyer, or friends. Indeed, his mother first learned he was in custody after he confessed to the two murders. During the entire 10-day period petitioner was never told he had a right to remain silent, or to refuse to answer the questions by the two detectives.

The end came on February 26, 1957. Petitioner arose at 7 o'clock in the morning, questioning began at 10 o'clock and continued off and on for 15 hours before the confession was typed. During this period he was moved from the Children's Shelter to the courthouse, the grand jury room, and an adjacent room. He was given several lie-detector tests and confronted with alleged witnesses. He had no sleep. He was given sandwiches for his lunch and dinner.

Certainly, such treatment so clearly violates the holdings of Haley v Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 68 S.Ct. 302, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963); and Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 20 L.Ed.2d 77 (1968), as to require a reversal in this case.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse