Tague v. Louisiana
Decision Date | 21 January 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79-5386,79-5386 |
Citation | 62 L.Ed.2d 622,444 U.S. 469,100 S.Ct. 652 |
Parties | Charles TAGUE v. State of LOUISIANA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner was charged with armed robbery in violation of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:64 (West 1974). He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 65 years at hard labor without benefit of parole. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in a brief per curiam opinion. 372 So.2d 555, 556 (1979). On rehearing, a divided court reaffirmed petitioner's conviction. Ibid. It rejected his contention that an inculpatory statement made to the arresting officer and introduced at trial had been obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
At the suppression hearing in the trial court, the arresting officer testified that he read petitioner his Miranda rights from a card, that he could not presently remember what those rights were, that he could not recall whether he asked petitioner whether he understood the rights as read to him, and that he "couldn't say yes or no" whether he rendered any tests to determine whether petitioner was literate or otherwise capable of understanding his rights. 372 So.2d at 557.
"[c]ontrary to the explicit requirements of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, . . . the majority today creates a presumption that the defendant understood his constitutional rights and places the burden of proof upon the defendant, instead of the state, to demonstrate whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel." Id., at 558.
We agree. The majority's error is readily apparent. Miranda v. Arizona clearly stated the principles that govern once the required warnings have been given.
384 U.S., at 475, 86 S.Ct., at 1628.
Just...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith
...self-incrimination." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See Tague v. Louisiana, 444 U.S. 469, 100 S.Ct. 652, 62 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980). "This burden need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and not by proof beyond a reasonable doubt......
-
United States v. St. Rose
...making the inculpatory statement[,]" the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proving a valid waiver. Tague v. Louisiana , 444 U.S. 469, 471, 100 S.Ct. 652, 62 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980). The record here is devoid of any evidence establishing that St. Rose understood his Miranda rights. The Gove......
-
People v. Houston
...Fare v. Michael C. (1979) 442 U.S. 707, 724-726, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571-2572, 61 L.Ed.2d 197), illiterate (see Tague v. Louisiana (1980) 444 U.S. 469, 100 S.Ct. 652, 62 L.Ed.2d 622, on remand (La.) 381 So.2d 507), or mentally deficient (see Henry v. Dees (5th Cir.1981) 658 F.2d 406, 409-410; J......
-
United States v. Dusablon, Cr. No. 81-00009-B.
...and (2) whether he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent. See Tague v. Louisiana, 444 U.S. 469, 470, 100 S.Ct. 652, 653, 62 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980) (per curiam); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 A. Burden of Proof "A heavy burden ......
-
Lego v. Twomey: the improbable relationship between an obscure Supreme Court decision and wrongful convictions.
...rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his" rights); see also Tague v. Louisiana, 444 U.S. 469, 471 (1980); North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979) ("The courts must presume that a defendant did not waive his rights; the prose......