419 U.S. 924 (1974), 73-1746, Johnson v. Ohio

Docket Nº:No. 73-1746.
Citation:419 U.S. 924, 95 S.Ct. 200, 42 L.Ed.2d 158
Party Name:Lee Ann JOHNSON v. State of OHIO.
Case Date:October 21, 1974
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 924

419 U.S. 924 (1974)

95 S.Ct. 200, 42 L.Ed.2d 158



State of OHIO.

No. 73-1746.

United States Supreme Court.

October 21, 1974


[95 S.Ct. 200] On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the Ohio for Clark County.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

Approximately one month after pleading guilty, petitioner sought to vacate her plea on the ground that she had not been adequately advised of the rights thereby waived. The record shows that before accepting petitioner's plea the trial judge advised her of her right to be tried by a jury and to confront witnesses against her. Petitioner's motion was denied by the trial court and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed.

Page 925

In Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1968), we emphasized that a guilty plea is a waiver of important constitutional rights designed to protect the fairness of a trial:

'Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 [84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653]. Second, is the right to trial by jury. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 194, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491. Third, is the right to confront one's accusers. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923. We cannot presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record.'

Waiver of such rights as these can be accomplished only by 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,' Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). Only recently we reaffirmed the stringent standard for demonstrating the waiver of rights designed to safeguard the accused at trial, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 236-237, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

The accused can waive only a known right, Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, and the State has the burden of demonstrating a knowing waiver. To repeat what we said in Boykin, '[w]e cannot presume waiver . . . from a silent record.' Boykin established that the State must demonstrate the defendant's...

To continue reading