Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Spano v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1959 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureConfessionsDue Processinvoluntary confessiondue processFourteenth Amendmenttotality of circumstancespolice interrogation

Facts

After petitioner had been indicted for first-degree murder, he surrendered with counsel, who instructed him not to answer questions. Police and an assistant district attorney questioned him persistently for nearly eight hours through the night, while he repeatedly refused to speak and repeatedly requested to see his attorney, but those requests were denied. Officers then used his close friend Bruno, a young police officer, to falsely tell petitioner that Bruno's job and family welfare were in danger because of petitioner, and after four such sessions petitioner confessed. The confession and additional inculpatory statements made during a subsequent trip with detectives were introduced at trial over objection.

Issue

Whether, under the Fourteenth Amendment, petitioner's confession was voluntary and therefore admissible when it was obtained after indictment through prolonged overnight questioning, repeated denial of requests to contact counsel, and use of a close friend to exploit petitioner's sympathies through falsehoods.

Rule

A confession is inadmissible under the Fourteenth Amendment if, considering the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's will was overborne by official pressure. In assessing voluntariness, courts must independently examine the record and consider factors such as prolonged questioning, fatigue, repeated refusals to speak, denial of requests to contact retained counsel, the use of deceptive tactics, and the overall post-indictment setting.

🔒

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.

After a grand jury in Ohio indicts Luis Moreno for homicide, he surrenders in Cleveland with retained counsel, who tells officers that Luis will not answer questions. Detectives and a prosecutor question Luis from 7:00 p.m. until 2:30 a.m., rotate multiple interrogators through the room, deny his repeated requests to call his lawyer, and finally send in his longtime friend Mateo Cruz, a rookie officer, to falsely say Mateo will lose his job and be unable to support his children unless Luis explains what happened. Luis then gives a recorded confession.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment voluntariness approach reflected in the majority opinion, how should a court most likely rule on the confession's admissibility?

Explanation. The majority applied a totality-of-the-circumstances voluntariness test asking whether official pressure overbore the defendant's will. Especially important were prolonged nighttime questioning, many interrogators, repeated refusals to answer, denial of requests to contact retained counsel, and the calculated false-friend tactic exploiting sympathy. Physical brutality is not required.