Pinto v. Pierce

Decision Date23 October 1967
Docket NumberNo. 284,284
Citation88 S.Ct. 192,389 U.S. 31,19 L.Ed.2d 31
PartiesWarren PINTO, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison Farm v. Lawrence PIERCE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See389 U.S. 997, 88 S.Ct. 462.

Thomas P. Ford, Jr., for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent was indicted by the grand jury of Essex County, New Jersey, on July 2, 1959, for the crime of robbery while armed.Following a plea of not guilty, he was tried before a jury, convicted and sentenced to a term of from 16 to 23 years in the New Jersey State Prison.On June 6, 1966, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.The District Judge determined from the transcript of respondent's trial that the trial court had heard in the presence of the jury testimony regarding the voluntariness of an incriminating statement sought to be introduced by the prosecution, held that under prior decisions of this Court this procedure violated respondent's constitutional rights and granted the writ.The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, and petitioner, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm, seeks a writ of certiorari.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed.This Court has never ruled that all voluntariness hearings must be held outside the presence of the jury, regardless of the circumstances.Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908(1964), held that a defendant's constitutional rights are violated when his challenged confession is introduced without a determination by the trial judge of its voluntariness after an adequate hearing.A confession by the defendant found to be involuntary by the trial judge is not to be heard by the jury which determines his guilt or innocence.Hence, because a disputed confession may be found involuntary and inadmissible by the judge, it would seem prudent to hold voluntariness hearings outside the presence of the jury.1In this case, however, the confession was held voluntary and admitted as evidence suitable for consideration by the jury.In addition, there is no claim that because the hearing was held in the presence of the jury it was inadequate or had any other unfair consequences for the respondent.2

Finally, it is clear that the respondent in this case did not object to having the voluntariness of his admission considered in the presence of the jury.At his trial the court asked defense counsel whether there was any objection to the testimony being taken in the presence of the jury.Defense counsel replied, 'None whatsoever.'The court continued, 'As you know, it can be taken in their presence or outside of their presence, and that is a matter of discretion with the Court but I am inquiring of you if have any objections.If you did I would hear you but I assume you have none.'Again counsel replied, 'I have none.'The evidence regarding voluntariness, which included testimony by respondent, was then taken, after which the court ruled that the statement was voluntary.

Since trial counsel consented to the evidence on voluntariness being taken in the presence of the jury, and the judge found the statement voluntary, respondent was deprived of no constitutional right.The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice FORTASconcurring in the result.

I concur in the result because of trial counsel's consent to the taking of evidence on voluntariness in the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
106 cases
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 28 Junio 1983
    ...any risk that the jury may hear evidence which the court ultimately determines to be inadmissible. See Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 32, 88 S.Ct. 192 , 19 L.Ed.2d 31 [1967]." State v. Panella, 168 Conn. 532, 540, 362 A.2d 953 (1975); State v. White, 37 Conn.Sup. 796, 805, 437 A.2d 145 There......
  • Wainwright v. Sykes
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 1977
    ...order to bar review on state procedural grounds in a federal habeas proceeding. 9. See n. 5, supra. 10. In Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 32, 88 S.Ct. 192, 193, 19 L.Ed.2d 31 (1967), the Court stated: "Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), held that a defendan......
  • Dempsey v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 3 Marzo 1976
    ...determining the voluntariness of confessions, Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 88 S.Ct. 192, 19 L.Ed.2d 31 (1967); Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967). While this Court has extensively dealt with ......
  • Gannett Co Inc v. Pasquale
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1979
    ...during trial. There is no federal requirement that States conduct suppression hearings prior to trial. See Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 32, 88 S.Ct. 192, 193, 19 L.Ed.2d 31 (1967). I assume that if such an objection were made during trial, it would be made in open court during the course o......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Motions to Suppress and the Problem of “taking with the Case” in Criminal Case
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Objections Guidebook Part 2 MAKING A PROPER RECORD IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
    • Invalid date
    ...important when accused’s statement is at issue · State v. Wise, 745 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988) (quoting Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 32 (1967) (citing Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964)); State v. Washington, 399 S.W.2d 109, 114 (Mo. 1966)): [A] defendant’s constitutional righ......