Brewer v. Williams

1977

Venue: SCOTUS
Facts: Williams is arrested in Davenport IA in connection with the abduction, in Des Moines, of a young girl. He is represented both in Davenport and in Des Moines. And counsel says "don't talk to him" on the trip back. Nonetheless, on the ride, the officer gives a "Christian burial" speech, which moves Williams-- who is mentally unstable and deeply religious-- to try to show the location of the girl's shoes, the blanket in which he wrapped her, and eventually (and with success this time) her body.
Posture: Guilty at trial. Affirmed by IA SC. On habeas federal district court says he should get a new trial, affirmed by 8th Cir. Cert granted.
Issue: Four of them:
  1. Did the district court disregard 28 USC § 2254(d) by making factual determinations?
  2. Was Williams denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel?
  3. Was Williams denied the protections of Miranda?
  4. Were Williams's incriminating statements made involuntarily and without a valid waiver of his rights?
Holding:
  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. Not bothering with this because we said yes to the last one.
  4. And again, no need to reach this issue.
Affirmed.
Rule: The right to counsel means, at the very least, that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer when judicial proceedings have been initiated against him or her.
Reasoning: It's obvious that judicial proceedings had been initiated prior to the car ride. It's equally obvious that the detective was trying to elicit information. And that this was done in isolation from Williams's lawyers. There would have been no problem had there been no interrogation, or if there had been a valid waiver.

IA looked at the totality of circumstances to see if there was a waiver. But this isn't an issue of fact, it's one of federal law: the government bears the burden of showing that there was a waiver, and there was no affirmative indication that Williams waived his rights.
Dicta: Marshall, concurring: the government teaches by example; crime is contagious. If the government doesn't scrupulously abide by the law, we'll have anarchy.

Stevens, concurring: nothing the court writes will bring the little girl back-- this is a highly emotional case, and that makes it hard to decide dispassionately. We need to focus on the big picture here.

Burger, dissenting: we are punishing society for the mistakes of an officer. The purpose of these protections is to prevent the admission of unreliable evidence, but this was clearly not that.

White, dissenting: the fact that he had talked to two lawyers, had been Mirandized, and had been warned by the officer not to talk make his waiver, if anything, better informed and more intelligent.