Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    White v. Texas, 310 U.S. 530 (1940)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court denied the State of Texas' petition for rehearing in the case of White v. Texas. The Court had previously overturned White's conviction for rape and death sentence because his confession, which was key evidence in his conviction, was obtained through coercive means in violation of due process. Specifically, White, an illiterate farmhand, was taken from jail at night by armed Texas Rangers, interrogated in the woods where he was whipped, and denied access to a lawyer during his detention, before being interrogated for hours and giving a written confession. The State failed to specifically deny these coercive acts, so the Court found that White's trial did not meet standards of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    White v. Texas, 310 U.S. 530 (1940)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the State of Texas' petition for rehearing in the case of White v. Texas. The Court had previously overturned White's conviction for rape and death sentence because his confession, which was key evidence in his conviction, was obtained through coercive means in violation of due process. Specifically, White, an illiterate farmhand, was taken from jail at night by armed Texas Rangers, interrogated in the woods where he was whipped, and denied access to a lawyer during his detention, before being interrogated for hours and giving a written confession. The State failed to specifically deny these coercive acts, so the Court found that White's trial did not meet standards of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1940-05-27 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 310 U.S. 530 Docket: 87

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the State of Texas' petition for rehearing in the case of White v. Texas. The Court had previously overturned White's conviction for rape and death sentence because his confession, which was key evidence in his conviction, was obtained through coercive means in violation of due process. Specifically, White, an illiterate farmhand, was taken from jail at night by armed Texas Rangers, interrogated in the woods where he was whipped, and denied access to a lawyer during his detention, before being interrogated for hours and giving a written confession. The State failed to specifically deny these coercive acts, so the Court found that White's trial did not meet standards of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    23 views4 pages

    White v. Texas, 310 U.S. 530 (1940)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court denied the State of Texas' petition for rehearing in the case of White v. Texas. The Court had previously overturned White's conviction for rape and death sentence because his confession, which was key evidence in his conviction, was obtained through coercive means in violation of due process. Specifically, White, an illiterate farmhand, was taken from jail at night by armed Texas Rangers, interrogated in the woods where he was whipped, and denied access to a lawyer during his detention, before being interrogated for hours and giving a written confession. The State failed to specifically deny these coercive acts, so the Court found that White's trial did not meet standards of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    310 U.S.

    530
    60 S.Ct. 1032
    84 L.Ed. 1342

    WHITE
    v.
    STATE OF TEXAS.
    No. 87.

    Argued on Motion of State of Texas for Rehearing May 20, 1940.


    Decided May 27, 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 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.
    3

    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 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 was called from the
    field in which he was picking cotton and was taken to the house of the brotherin-law of the prosecutrix, the victim of the crime, where fifteen or sixteen
    negroes of the vicinity were at the time in custody without warrants or the
    filing of charges. Taken to the county court house, and thence to the Polk
    County jail, petitioner was kept there six or seven days. According to his
    testimony, armed Texas Rangers on several successive nights took him
    handcuffed from the jail 'up in the woods somewhere', whipped him, asked him
    each time about a confession and warned him not to speak to any one about the
    nightly trips tot he woods. During the period of his arrest up to and including
    the signing of the alleged confession, petitioner had no lawyer, no charges were
    filed against him and he was out of touch with friends or relatives.

    There were denials that petitioner was ever physically mistreated or abused. But
    the Rangers and a local peace officer, identified by petitioner as the officers
    who took him on the night trips to the woods and there whipped him, did not
    specifically deny that he was taken out of jail, at night, and interrogated in the
    woods. This local peace officer wasn't sure 'how many times' the prisoner was
    removed from jail, and one Ranger re-stated his testimony given at the first trial
    that he 'took him out so many times' the exact number could not be recalled.
    The prisoner was taken out of jail, driven 'out on the road' and then 'out off of
    the road', as this Ranger testified, in order that the officers could talk to him and
    because the jail was crowded. In jail, the Sheriff put petitioner by himself and
    'kept watching him and talking to him.'

    Before carrying petitioner to Beaumont, where the alleged confession was


    taken, the Sheriff talked about an hour and a half with him. The Rangers who
    had been taking petitioner to the woods at night knew the county attorney was
    going to Beaumont to get a statement; they, too, went there and were in and out
    of the eighth floor room of the jail in Beaumont, with the elevator locked,
    where petitioner was interrogated from approximately 11:00 P.M. to 3:00 or
    3:30 A.M. The alleged confession was reduced to writing after 2 A.M.
    Immediately before it was taken down, the prisoner was repeatedly asked by
    the private prosecutor whether he was ready to confess. Petitioner then began to
    cry, and the typing of the confession, upon which the State's case substantially
    rested, was completed by the county attorney about daylight. Two citizens of
    Beaumont signed it as witnesses.

    'Due process of law, preserved for all by our Constitution, commands that no
    such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any accused to his
    death.' 4

    The State's petition for rehearing is denied.

    Petition denied.

    128 S.W.2d 51. A prior conviction was reversed. 135 Tex.Cr.R. 210, 117
    S.W.2d 450.

    Petitioner's original petition for certiorari was denied November 13, 1939. On
    February 29, 1940, after our decision in the Chambers case, petitioner filed a
    petition for rehearing of his original petition, assigning the additional ground
    that his conviction was attributable to the use by the State of a confession
    obtained by coercion and intimidation. March 2, 1940, the Attorney General of
    Texas was notified of the pendency of the petition for rehearing and he has
    informed the Clerk of this Court that he notified the State's Appellate Criminal
    Attorney. Information of pendency of the petition for rehearing of the petition
    for certiorari was also communicated to the Montgomery County District Court
    Clerk, the District Attorney, the Governor and the State Board of Pardons and
    Paroles. The State's petition for rehearing of our judgment of March 25, 1940,
    reversing the State court's judgment, alleged that the State had not received
    adequate notice and sought further opportunity to present the State's views. We
    therefore heard oral arguments upon the State's petition for rehearing.

    In addition to alleging that the confession relied on by the State was coerced

    and involuntary, both petitioner's amended motion for a new trial and his bill of
    exceptions to the court below set out that he 'was not permitted to talk to an
    attorney to advise him but was kept incommunicado, was not permitted to use a
    telephone, was kept in the woods by Rangers a great portion of the time and
    was denied every right that even this defendant is entitled to under the
    Constitution of Texas and the Constitution of the United States.'
    4

    Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716; Canty v.
    Alabama, 309 U.S. 629, 60 S.Ct. 612, 84 L.Ed. 988.

    You might also like