White v. State of Texas, No. 87
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLACK |
| Citation | 84 L.Ed. 1342,60 S.Ct. 1032,310 U.S. 530 |
| Parties | WHITE v. STATE OF TEXAS |
| Docket Number | No. 87 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 1940 |
v.
STATE OF TEXAS.
Argued on Motion of State of Texas for Rehearing May 20, 1940.
Messrs. F.S.K. Whittaker and Carter Wesley, both of Houston, Tex., for petitioner.
Messrs. Lloyd W. Davidson and William J. Fanning, both of Austin, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of rape and sentenced to death in the District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. The State's appellate criminal court of last resort affirmed and denied rehearing.1 We declined to grant certiorari to review the State court's action. February 29, 1940, petitioner sought rehearing of his petition for certiorari, alleging that his conviction and sentence resulted from proceedings in which the State had utilized an alleged confession in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. March 25, 1940, we granted certiorari, and reversed the judgment of the state court
Page 531
309 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 706, 84 L.Ed. 989, upon authority of Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716, and Canty v. Alabama, 309 U.S. 629, 60 S.Ct. 612, 84 L.Ed. 988. The case is before us now on the State's petition for rehearing.2
From the first offer of the alleged confession in evidence at the trial, petitioner has challenged the State's right to utilize it consistently with rights guaranteed him by the Federal Constitution.3 In affirming the conviction and sentence of death, the court below necessarily determined that use of the confession did not constitute a denial of that due process which the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.
The State suggests that there is evidence that petitioner denied ever having made or signed the confession which purported to be signed by his mark. Therefore, it insists
Page 532
that petitioner is barred from urging that the prosecution's use of the confession could have deprived him of due process at his trial. But regardless of petitioner's testimony on this question, the State insisted and offered testimony to establish that the confession was signed by him and upon this evidence the confession was submitted to the jury for the purpose of obtaining his conviction. Since, therefore, the confession was presented by the State to the jury as that of petitioner, we must determine whether the record shows that, if signed at all, the confession was obtained and used in such manner that petitioner's trial fell short of that procedural due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
Petitioner is an illiterate farmhand who was engaged, at the time of his arrest, upon a plantation about ten miles from Livingston, Texas. On the day following the crime with which he has been charged, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Fenton, No. 83-5530
...right, else federal law could be frustrated by distorted fact finding." 7 Page 1475 The Supreme Court's opinions in White v. Texas, 310 U.S. 530, 60 S.Ct. 1032, 84 L.Ed. 1342 (1940), and Ward v. Texas, 316 U.S. 547, 62 S.Ct. 1139, 86 L.Ed. 1663 (1942), are exemplars of this point. State off......
-
State v. McKoy, No. 585A85
...defendant is susceptible to coercion. Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U.S. 547, 61 S.Ct. 1092, 85 L.Ed. 1513 (1941) (per curiam); White v. Texas, 310 U.S. 530, 60 S.Ct. 1032, 84 L.Ed. 1342 (1940). The officers were fully aware that the defendant had been badly wounded by gunfire shortly before the i......
-
Miranda v. State, No. 759
...60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716 (1940); Canty v. State of Alabama, 309 U.S. 629, 60 S.Ct. 612, 84 L.Ed. 988 (1940); White v. State of Texas, 310 U.S. 530, 60 S.Ct. 1032, 84 L.Ed. 1342 (1940); Vernon v. State of Alabama, 313 U.S. 547, 61 S.Ct. 1092, 85 L.Ed. 1513 (1941); Ward v. State of Texas, 3......
-
CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ
...v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143 (1944); Ward v. Texas, 316 U. S. 547 (1942); Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 547 (1941); White v. Texas, 310 U. S. 530 (1940); Canty v. Alabama, 309 U. S. 629 (1940); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936); Wakat v. Har......
-
Miller v. Fenton, No. 83-5530
...right, else federal law could be frustrated by distorted fact finding." 7 Page 1475 The Supreme Court's opinions in White v. Texas, 310 U.S. 530, 60 S.Ct. 1032, 84 L.Ed. 1342 (1940), and Ward v. Texas, 316 U.S. 547, 62 S.Ct. 1139, 86 L.Ed. 1663 (1942), are exemplars of this point. State off......
-
State v. McKoy, No. 585A85
...defendant is susceptible to coercion. Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U.S. 547, 61 S.Ct. 1092, 85 L.Ed. 1513 (1941) (per curiam); White v. Texas, 310 U.S. 530, 60 S.Ct. 1032, 84 L.Ed. 1342 (1940). The officers were fully aware that the defendant had been badly wounded by gunfire shortly before the i......
-
Miranda v. State, No. 759
...60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716 (1940); Canty v. State of Alabama, 309 U.S. 629, 60 S.Ct. 612, 84 L.Ed. 988 (1940); White v. State of Texas, 310 U.S. 530, 60 S.Ct. 1032, 84 L.Ed. 1342 (1940); Vernon v. State of Alabama, 313 U.S. 547, 61 S.Ct. 1092, 85 L.Ed. 1513 (1941); Ward v. State of Texas, 3......
-
CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ
...v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143 (1944); Ward v. Texas, 316 U. S. 547 (1942); Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 547 (1941); White v. Texas, 310 U. S. 530 (1940); Canty v. Alabama, 309 U. S. 629 (1940); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936); Wakat v. Har......
-
The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Criminal Justice
...The State may not (1940) ; White v. Texas, 309 U. S. 631 (1940), permit an accused to be hurried to convic- on application for rehearing, 310 U. S. 530 tion under mob domination-where the (1940) ; Lomax v. Texas, 313 U. S. 544 whole proceeding is but (1941) ; Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 54......