Clewis v. State of Texas, 648

Decision Date24 April 1967
Docket NumberNo. 648,648
PartiesMarvin CLEWIS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Reagan H. Legg, Midland, Tex., for petitioner.

Gilbert J. Pena, Laredo, Tex., for respondent.

Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, Marvin Peterson Clewis, stands convicted of the murder, by strangulation, of his wife, Dorothy Mae Clewis. The jury which found him guilty imposed a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment. During the course of his trial, petitioner moved to exclude from evidence three statements he had made while in police custody. Petitioner claimed that these statements had not been voluntarily made, and that their use against him at his trial would deny him due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.1 Evidence was taken by the court outside of the jury's presence, and the structed verdict and for a new trial, both motion was overruled.2 Petitioner's third, and last, written confession was then introduced in evidence over objection. The question of its voluntariness was presented to the jury, which, by its general verdict, resolved the question against petitioner. Petitioner's constitutional objection to the use of his statement was renewed in his motions for instructed verdict, and for a new trial, both of which the trial judge overruled. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the judgment of conviction, —- S.W.2d —-. That court reviewed the record and concluded that it could not hold 'that there are any undisputed facts which rendered the confession inadmissible as a matter of law.' We disagree, and we reverse.

The question for determination is whether, considering the 'totality of the circumstances,'3 Marvin Clewis' statements were not voluntary and the third statement should have been excluded. We approach this question from an independent examination of the whole record, our established practice in these cases.4 Our recent observation in Davis v. State of North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 741, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 1764, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966), applies equally here: 'As is almost invariably so in cases involving confessions obtained through unobserved police interrogation, there is a conflict in the testimony as to the events surrounding the interrogations.' For the purpose of deciding this case, we need not go beyond the State's version of the facts. Accord- ingly, we do not consider petitioner's claim that he was subjected to physical assaults.

The trial of this case was prior to the date of decision of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the requirements of which, therefore, are not directly applicable, Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966), although relevant on the issue of voluntariness, Davis v. State of North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 6 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966).

Petitioner was taken into custody at about 6 a.m. on Sunday, July 8, 1962, and first gave a statement to the police late in the afternoon of Monday, July 9. Thereafter, he was taken before a magistrate. On the view most favorable to the State, petitioner had been held some 38 hours before being taken before a magistrate to be charged, had had little sleep and very little food, and appeared to the police to be sick. He had been visited briefly once or twice, but had had no contact with a lawyer. He had consistently denied all knowledge of his wife's death until the point at which he agreed to give a statement, and then had confessed to killing her in a way (by shooting) that—it later developed—was inconsistent with the facts.5

Petitioner next gave a statement on Thursday, July 12. The events leading up to the second 'confession' may be summarized: having been formally charged, but unrepresented and unadvised by counsel, petitioner was interrogated fairly frequently and by several different officers from Monday evening to Thursday afternoon.6 During this period he was driven on a round trip of about 600 miles, was administered several polygraph tests, was detained in at least three different police buildings, and apparently had very little to eat and little contact except with policemen. Despite all this, and in the face of his earlier 'confession,' he steadfastly denied any guilt—or even knowledge with respect to his wife's death until he finally produced the second 'confession.'

On Friday, July 13, Clewis was delivered to the custody of the Midland County Sheriff. He remained in the county jail from then until Tuesday, July 17. During this time he was apparently not interrogated, abused, or denied adequate food and sleep. He did not, however, consult with a lawyer.

At about 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 17, petitioner was again interrogated, this time by two deputy sheriffs. He again began by denying any guilt in connection with his wife's death. No lawyer was present, nor had petitioner been advised of his right to have one appointed. The Midland County District Attorney arrived, and shortly thereafter petitioner confessed for the third time. There is no testimony that any warning of the right to remain silent was given prior to this oral confession. About 10:45 a.m. preparation of a written statement was begun, following a formal warning of the right not to make it. Shortly thereafter, Clewis signed the statement which was introduced against him at trial.

On this record, we cannot hold that petitioner's third statement was voluntary. It plainly cannot on these facts, be separated from the circumstances surrounding the two earlier 'confessions.' There is here no break in the stream of events from the time Sunday morning when petitioner was taken to the police station to the time Tuesday morning some nine days later that he signed the statement in issue, sufficient to insulate the statement from the effect of all that went before. Compare United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 540, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 1398, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947) with Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 444, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 1548, 6 L.Ed.2d 948 (1961).

Among the factors which require our conclusion that the 'confession' was not voluntary are the following:

(1) During this long period of custody, petitioner was never fully advised that he could consult counsel and have counsel appointed if necessary, that he was entitled to remain silent, and that anything he said could be used as evidence against him. Cf. Davis v. State of North Carolina, 384 U.. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966); Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Even after he was arraigned, he was not advised of his right to appointed counsel. Post-arraignment interrogation, over a period of more than a week, occurred without the presence of counsel for the accused, and without any waiver thereof.

(2) The first statement was secured following an initial taking-into-custody which was concededly not supported by probable cause,7 followed by 38 hours of intermittent interrogation—despite the Texas rule that an accused be taken before a magistrate 'immediately.' Texas Code Crim.Proc. Art. 217 (1925); now, substantially revised in other respects, Texas Code Crim.Proc. Arts. 14.06, 15.17 (1965). This was followed by the prolonged, if intermittent, interrogation by numerous...

To continue reading

Request your trial
443 cases
  • People v. Rivers, Cr. 10411
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 7, 1967
    ...rules of Escobedo and Miranda must nevertheless be taken into account on the issue of voluntariness. (Clewis v. State of Texas (1967), 386 U.S. 707, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 1339, 18 L.Ed.2d 423; Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra, 384 U.S. 719, 730, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.) Both defendant ......
  • State v. Darwin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 31, 1967
    ...course remains in full force, and it is under this test that the claims now to be considered must be determined. Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 18 L.Ed.2d 423; Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra, 384 U.S. 732, 86 S.Ct. 1772; Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.Ct. 1......
  • United States v. Karake, Criminal Action No. 02-0256(ESH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 17, 2006
    ...the stream of events ... sufficient to insulate the statement from the effect of all that went before." Clewis v. State of Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 710, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 18 L.Ed.2d 423 (1967). B. Application of the Attenuation The insurmountable problem the government has in proving that, between......
  • State v. Derrico
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 10, 1980
    ...events between the two statements." Darwin v. Connecticut, supra, 391 U.S. at 350-51, 88 S.Ct. at 1490; Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 710, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 1340, 18 L.Ed.2d 423 (1967); Tanner v. Vincent, 541 F.2d 932, 936 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1065, 97 S.Ct. 794, 50 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED CONFESSIONS.
    • United States
    • December 1, 2020
    ...v. Connecticut, 391 U.S. 346, 349 (1968) (per curiam); Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1968) (per curiam); Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 709, 711-12 (1967); Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 739, 746-47, 752 (1966); Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 504 (1963); Gallego......
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • April 1, 2022
    ...there is a “break in the stream of events…sufficient to insulate the statement from the effect of all that went before.” Clewis v. Texas , 386 U.S. 707, 710 (1967). The Clewis Court suppressed a second statement when the coerced confession was obtained nine days earlier. In suppressing the ......
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...there is a “break in the stream of events…suficient to insulate the statement from the effect of all that went before.” Clewis v. Texas , 386 U.S. 707, 710 (1967). The Clewis Court suppressed a second statement when the coerced confession was obtained nine days earlier. In suppressing the c......
  • Suppressing Involuntary Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • August 4, 2016
    ...there is a “break in the stream of events…suficient to insulate the statement from the effect of all that went before.” Clewis v. Texas , 386 U.S. 707, 710 (1967). The Clewis Court suppressed a second statement when the coerced confession was obtained nine days earlier. In suppressing the c......
  • 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