BREWER, WARDEN
v.
WILLIAMS.
430 U.S. 387 (1977)
Facts:
Procedural
The state court denied the defendant William’s motion to suppress the incriminating statement that he made to the police officer while the drive to Des Moines. He was convicted murder after the trail. The Supreme Court (Iowa) held that the defendant Williams had waived his right to the presence of his counsel during the drive with the police officer. Williams petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal district court, the federal district court concluded that William’s right of counsel has been violated, The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed this judgment and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Substantive
On the afternoon of December 24, 1968, the defendant Williams abducted and murder 10-year-old girl. Williams conferred with his lawyer and turned himself to the police department after 2 days (On the morning of December 26). The police officer was told by his lawyer that Williams was not to be questions during transportation. During the drive, an officer appealed to Williams’ religious beliefs. After that, Williams told the police officer to where he buried the body.
Issues:
1.Whether the officer’s “Christian burial speech” an interrogation that violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel
2. Did the defendant Williams waive his right to counsel by letting the police officer know where the body was?
Rule
1.Under the Sixth Amendment dictates that the defendant has right to the assistant of counsel.
2. The court has the burden to show that the distinction between a voluntary act and the waiver of a right to counsel.
Analysis:
1. There were no questions that judicial proceeding against defendant Williams when he was arraigned in the Davenport. It meant that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was applied before the defendant Williams transferred to Des Moines. The police officer who was called Leaming improperly interrogated Williams without an attorney through by his “Christian burial Speech” which meant that the police officer violated the Sixth Amendment.
1. The court had to show that Williams intentionally waived his right to counsel, but the Court did not have evidence to show it. The police officer was told not to ask question by defendant’s lawyer, and the defendant did not have to make any statements as well. It happened after the police officer used Williams’s religion to make the defendant confessed. Therefore, The State court could not affirm that Williams intentionally waived his right to Counsel.
Conclusion
1.The defendant Williams was denied his constitutional right of counsel
2. He was denied the constitutional protections defined by court
