Turner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Citation93 L.Ed. 1810,69 S.Ct. 1352,338 U.S. 62
Decision Date27 June 1949
Docket NumberNo. 107,107
PartiesTURNER v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

See 67 A.2d 441.

Mr. Edwin P. Rome, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Mr. Colbert C. McClain, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice MURPHY and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE join.

Our ruling in Watts v. State of Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, is decisive of the present case. It is also a capital case in which the petitioner claims that his conviction for first-degree murder resulted from the use of incriminatory statements obtained under circumstances which should have barred their admission. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in affirming the conviction, rejected this claim. 358 Pa. 350, 58 A.2d 61. We brought the case here to measure against the requirements of due process the circumstances giving rise to the claim. 334 U.S. 858, 68 S.Ct. 1521, 92 L.Ed. 1778. Again we take conflicts of testimony as they were resolved by the State's adjudication.

For six months the Philadelphia police had been investigating the felonious death of one Frank Andres. At 10:30 in the morning of June 3, 1946, they arrested Aaron Turner, the petitioner, on suspicion of the homicide and took him to the office of the Homicide Division at the City Hall Building. The officers making the arrest had no warrant and did not tell the petitioner why he was being a rested. These officers began to question the petitioner as soon as they reached the City Hall police station. One of them examined the petitioner for three hours on that afternoon and again that night from eight to eleven o'clock. From time to time other officers joined in the interrogation. Petitioners persistently denied any knowledge of the murder.

The next morning, June 4, the petitioner was booked on the police records as being held for questioning. Later that day he was questioned for about four hours more. On June 5 he was interrogated for another four hours and on the 6th for day and night sessions totaling six hours. The questioning was conducted sometimes by one officer and at other times by several working together; it appears in fact, that whenever one of the police officers interested in the investigation had any free time he would have the petitioner brought from his cell for questioning.

On June 7, the day when a confession was finally obtained, questioning began in the afternoon and continued for three hours. Later that day the officers who had been present during the afternoon returned with others to resume the examination of petitioner. Despite the fact that he was falsely told that other suspects had 'opened up' on him, petitioner repeatedly denied guilt. But finally, at about eleven o'clock, petitioner stated that he had killed the person for whose murder he was later arraigned. At nine o'clock the following morning the same police officers stated to reduce his statement to writing, interrupted this process to bring him for a preliminary hearing before a magistrate sitting in the same building, and returned to the transcript of his statement which was completed by about noon.

The petitioner was not permitted to see friends or relatives during the entire period of custody; he was not informed of his right to remain silent until after he had been under the pressure of a long process of interrogation and had actually yielded to it. With commendable candor the district attorney admitted that a hearing was withheld until interrogation had produced confession. The delay of five days thus accounted for was in violation of a Pennsylvania statute which requires that arrested persons be given a prompt preliminary hearing.

At the trial, petitioner objected to the introduction of his statement on the ground that it was the product of police conduct of a nature condemned by our previous cases. The trial judge overruled petitioner's objection to the use of the confession but told the jury to disregard it if they found it to have been involuntary. He also told them that it was common sense 'not to send them (suspects) to the magistrate before you have sufficient information to hold an alleged culprit for the Grand Jury.' He refused to charge that in considering the voluntariness of the confession the prolonged interrogation should be considered.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended the death penalty. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the conviction in an opinion stressing the probable guilt of the petitioner and assuming that the alternatives before it were either to approve the conduct of the police or to turn the petitioner 'loose upon (society) after he has confessed his guilt.' 358 Pa. at page 367, 58 A.2d at page 69.

Putting this case beside the considerations set forth in our opinion in Watts v. State of Indiana, 338 U.S. 69 S.Ct. 1347, leaves open no other possible conclusion than that petitioner's confession was obtained under circumstances which made its use at the trial a denial of due process. We must, accordingly, reverse the judgment and remand the case.

There remains, however, an additional complication. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
207 cases
  • Cameron, In re
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1968
    ...510--511, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513; Culombe v. Connecticut (1961) 367 U.S. 568, 610, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037; Turner v. Pennsylvania (1949) 338 U.S. 62, Both Mr. Mulkey and the physician who examined him before he was questioned concluded, however, that he was rational, physicall......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1986
    ...596, 68 S.Ct. 302, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948); Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1801 (1949); Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62, 69 S.Ct. 1352, 93 L.Ed. 1810 (1949); Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815 (1949); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, ......
  • Commonwealth ex rel. Master v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • March 20, 1950
    ... 72 A.2d 150 166 Pa.Super. 413 COMMONWEALTH ex rel. MASTER v. BALDI, Superintendent, Philadelphia County Prison. Superior Court of Pennsylvania March 20, 1950 ... Argued ... November 22, 1949 ... Appeal, No. 220, Oct. T., 1949, from order of Court of ... Quarter ... Supreme Court of the United States has recently held ... ( Watts v. Indiana , supra, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct ... 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1434; Turner v. Pennsylvania , 338 ... U.S. 62, 69 S.Ct. 1352, 93 L.Ed. 1810, and Harris v ... South Carolina , 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed ... ...
  • Com. ex rel. Norman v. Banmiller
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1959
    ...149 A.2d 881 395 Pa. 232 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Charles NORMAN, Appellant, v. William J. BANMILLER, Warden, Eastern State ... 97 L.Ed. 469; Watts v. State of Indiana, 338 U.S ... 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1801; Turner v. Commonwealth ... of Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62, 69 S.Ct. 1352, 93 L.Ed ... 1810; Harris v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • April 1, 2022
    ...resistance and held the repeated interrogations in pursuit of that goal were unconstitutional. In a similar case, Turner v. Pennsylvania , 338 U.S. 62 (1949), the court suppressed a confession where the defendant was interrogated off and on for five days in violation of a state law that req......
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...resistance and held the repeated interrogations in pursuit of that goal were unconstitutional. In a similar case, Turner v. Pennsylvania , 338 U.S. 62 (1949), the court suppressed a confession where the defendant was interrogated off and on for ive days in violation of a state law that requ......
  • Suppressing Involuntary Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • August 4, 2016
    ...resistance and held the repeated interrogations in pursuit of that goal were unconstitutional. In a similar case, Turner v. Pennsylvania , 338 U.S. 62 (1949), the court suppressed a confession where the defendant was interrogated off and on for ive days in violation of a state law that requ......
  • Suppressing Involuntary Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • August 4, 2017
    ...resistance and held the repeated interrogations in pursuit of that goal were unconstitutional. In a similar case, Turner v. Pennsylvania , 338 U.S. 62 (1949), the court suppressed a confession where the defendant was interrogated o൵ and on for ive days in violation of a state law that requi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT