Harris v. State of South Carolina, No. 76

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFRANKFURTER; On the record before us and in view of the consideration given to the evidence by the state courts and the conclusion reached, THE CHIEF JUSTICE; DOUGLAS
Citation338 U.S. 68,93 L.Ed. 1815,69 S.Ct. 1354
Decision Date27 June 1949
Docket NumberNo. 76
PartiesHARRIS v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

338 U.S. 68
69 S.Ct. 1354
93 L.Ed. 1815
HARRIS

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 76.
Argued Nov. 16, 1948.
Decided June 27, 1949.

Messrs. Julian B. Salley, Jr., Leonard A. Williamson, Aiken, S.C., for petitioner.

Mr. B. D. Carter, Bamberg, S.C., for respondent.

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

On Sunday morning, April 28, 1946, Edward L. Bennett and his wife were killed in their store in Aiken

Page 69

County, South Carolina. Bennett's last words were, 'A big negro shot me and robbed me.' Petitioner, Harris, age twenty-five, a slightly built Negro, was subsequently indicted in the Court of General Sessions for Aiken County and found guilty of the murder of the Bennetts. The jury's verdict required imposition of the death sentence. The Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the claim that a confession introduced at the trial was obtained under circumstances which precluded its admission under the Due Process Clause and sustained the conviction, 212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E.2d 682, 692, by a 3—2 vote, two judges dissenting on the ground that the facts show that the confession 'was not freely and voluntarily made.' We brought the case here to consider the validity of this claim. 334 U.S. 837, 68 S.Ct. 1490, 92 L.Ed. 1762.

When the disputed testimony is resolved in favor of the State, the following facts emerge:

The police of Aiken County spent two and a half months in fruitless investigation of the murders. Many suspects had been held for interrogation and then released. Suspicion was finally directed toward petitioner by reports that he possessed a pistol and had left for Nashville, Tennessee, soon after the murders. The Sheriff of Aiken County then obtained a warrant ostensibly for the purpose of arresting petitioner for the theft of his aunt's pistol but actually to secure his return from Nashville. He was taken into custody there on Friday, July 12, 1946. No warrant was read to him and he was not informed of the charge against him. He was brought back to Aiken County and lodged in its jail on Sunday afternoon at about four o'clock. He first learned that he was suspected of the murder of Bennett on Monday afternoon. He denied the accusation. At that time he was briefly interrogated by the sheriff and the jailer.

On Monday night questioning began in earnest. At least five officers worked in relays, relieving each other

Page 70

from time to time to permit respite from the stifling heat of the cubicle in which the interrogation was conducted. Throughout the evening petitioner denied that he had killed the Bennetts. On Tuesday the questioning continued under the same conditions from 1:30 in the afternoon until past one the following morning with only an hour's interval at 5:30. On Wednesday afternoon the Chief of the State Constabulary, with half a dozen of his men, questioned petitioner for about an hour, and the local authorities carried on the interrogation for three and a half hours longer. At 6:30 that evening the examination resumed. Petitioner continued to deny implication in the killings. The sheriff then threatened to arrest petitioner's mother for handling stolen property. Petitioner replied, 'Don't get my mother mixed up in it and I will tell you the truth.' Petitioner then stated in substance what appears in the confession introduced at the trial. The session ended at midnight.

Petitioner was not informed of his rights under South Carolina law, such as the right to secure a lawyer, the right to request a preliminary hearing, or the right to remain silent. No preliminary hearing was ever given and his confession does not even contain the usual statement that he was told that what he said might be used against him. During the whole period of interrogation he was d nied the benefit of consultation with family and friends and was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
143 practice notes
  • Miller v. Fenton, No. 83-5530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 28, 1984
    ...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), state the doctrine On review here of State convictions, all those matters which are usually termed issue......
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, No. 13821
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 2, 1963
    ...manner and at the times testified to by the State's witnesses.7 In the light of the "complex of circumstances," Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 71, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 1356, 93 L.Ed. 1815 (1949), from the undisputed testimony, "the question to be decided in each case is whether a defendan......
  • United States v. Minker Falcone v. Barnes, Nos. 35
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1956
    ...officers in their official chambers. See, e.g., Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1801; Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716. Yet power of the Attorney General and immigration ......
  • United States ex rel. Dickerson v. Rundle, No. 17629.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 21, 1970
    ...L.Ed.2d 653, overruling Adamson v. California, 1947, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903. 2 E. g., Harris v. South Carolina, 1949, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815; Townsend v. Burke, 1948, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 3 The Supreme Court has stated and applied this......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
142 cases
  • Miller v. Fenton, No. 83-5530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 28, 1984
    ...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), state the doctrine On review here of State convictions, all those matters which are usually termed issue......
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, No. 13821
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 2, 1963
    ...manner and at the times testified to by the State's witnesses.7 In the light of the "complex of circumstances," Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 71, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 1356, 93 L.Ed. 1815 (1949), from the undisputed testimony, "the question to be decided in each case is whether a defendan......
  • United States v. Minker Falcone v. Barnes, Nos. 35
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1956
    ...officers in their official chambers. See, e.g., Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1801; Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716. Yet power of the Attorney General and immigration ......
  • United States ex rel. Dickerson v. Rundle, No. 17629.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 21, 1970
    ...L.Ed.2d 653, overruling Adamson v. California, 1947, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903. 2 E. g., Harris v. South Carolina, 1949, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815; Townsend v. Burke, 1948, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 3 The Supreme Court has stated and applied this......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Criminal Justice
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 275-1, May 1951
    • May 1, 1951
    ...v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112. And the Burton, JJ., dissenting; Harris v. South Car- trial equally is a mere pretense where the olina, 338 U. S. 68 (1949)—Vinson, State authorities have contrived a convic- Reed, Jackson, Burton, JJ., dissenting; John- tion resting solely upon confess......

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