Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Crooker v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1958 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureConfessionsRight to CounselDue ProcessFourteenth Amendmentdue processvoluntary confessioncoerced confession

Facts

After his arrest for murder, petitioner refused a lie detector test and asked to call a specific attorney, but police told him he could call an attorney after the investigation was concluded. Over roughly 14 hours before confessing, he was questioned in several sessions, given food, coffee, and cigarettes, told he did not have to say anything he did not want to, and in fact refused to answer many questions. Petitioner was 31, college educated, had attended one year of law school, had studied criminal law, and showed familiarity with evidentiary limits on lie detector results. He later gave a written confession, and on the following afternoon was allowed to call his attorney and thereafter was represented by counsel through arraignment and trial.

Issue

Did the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause bar use of petitioner's confession because it was coerced after police denied his request to contact counsel? Separately, did the denial of his request to contact counsel itself violate due process even if the confession was voluntary?

Rule

A confession is inadmissible under the Fourteenth Amendment if it is coerced rather than the product of the accused's free will. State refusal of a request to engage counsel violates due process if, under all the circumstances, the accused is thereby prejudiced so as to infect the subsequent trial with an absence of fundamental fairness; denial of such a request does not automatically establish a due process violation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, 34-year-old Nina Velasquez, a certified accountant who completed several criminal justice courses, was arrested on suspicion of arson. At the station, she asked to call her lawyer, was told she could do so after questioning, was given food and coffee, was told she did not have to answer questions, declined to answer several inquiries, and confessed after six hours of intermittent questioning.

Under the majority's due process approach, is Nina's confession most likely admissible?

Explanation. The majority rejected a per se rule. The key question is whether the confession resulted from police coercion or from the accused's own free will. A denied request to contact counsel can increase the possibility of coercion, but it is not decisive. Here, as in the majority opinion, the suspect was mature, educated, informed she could remain silent, and in fact refused to answer some questions, supporting voluntariness. (Derived from Crooker v. California (n.d.).)