Petitioners Brief — Culombe v. Connecticut (No. 161)
Supreme Court brief1960
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FILE COPY . a |
OCT 25 1940
>
IN THE SRE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ~aeen |
OCTOBER sR, 1960
‘No. 161
cee ARTHUR CULOMBE, .
; | : Petitioner,
| . ; . 0 bers us— .
| |
: “ . STATE OF CONNECTICUT .
’ Respondent.
“ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS ,
. OF THE STATE UF CONNECTICUT
> .
Bee | |
( * PETITIONER'S BRIEF
4
’ :
, ALEXANDER A. GOLDFARB,
ae . | 111 Pearl Street,
: | * Hartford, Connecticut,
Special Public Defender,
Counsel for Petitioner:
GRaAEME K. Howarp, Jr.,
378° Crown Street,
New Haven, Connecticut.
Counsel for Petitioner.
* &
ay CL JOO Lge -_ “4
je re
INDEX
j SUBJECT INDEX *—
Peritioner’s Brier:
Citations Sie lacttosctiaossiptinn ocd inaksiliamemisoee AEE ONOR NE ica i
Opinion MT siccsncalpries cclekencincisummidassae na pee 1
cg RT OT REE STOTT ea 1
ae ie ce ce, AR A OE 2
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions eibenianansai sini — =
Statement of the Case ineiiieatie ihnlesciasiaeehpenaiaiiaicnanles i
- Summary of Argument ........ idea alaclannaginnsted 7 17
PUINIIE icles cpat nia henna Gunton aaaidieeet 18
Conclusion ions gesiebje nlontvaninichbeadebciutist estaeecnesenesencssecsscecnnsenee Ob
APPENDICES: | .
A. Statutes 00000... niinnascnsthipns lepine tocenntoiomsing ecco A-1
Crrations:
- Cases :
' Asheraft v.. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 022.0000... visemes 19
Rlackburn v. Alabama, 361 US. 199. .................. 19, 20, 25
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 ................... sue 19
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 ................ leone 19, 31
Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3 oo..cceccccecccecceccceceesseeseeseee 28
Comm. v. Johnson, 365 Pa. 303... ponies 21
Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 ooo ccc ccccccceccecee 27
Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191... 19, 20, 24
Gallegos v. Nebraska, » &, 3 aaa 19
Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. se ON NT,
House-v. Mayo, oS 5 Re recans ae ne 30
. Johnson v. Pennsylvania, 340 U.S. 881 omnes AP 21
Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 0 ° AM 19
Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401... S aiepehcaibonia 26
Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 20, 24, 25
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 oo... cececcotceeeeccee. 28
ii INDEX -
Spano v. New York, 360°U.S. 315 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Stem v. New York, 346 U.S. 156 2c -....20; 24
Turner v. Pe nnsylvania, 338 U.S. 62)... 21, 24
_ United States ex rel. Reid v. Richmond, Civil Action —
7845, Memorandum of Decision, page 7 (Dist. Conn.
13 J — il SEE 1 EEO SAA ME TOO ne 32
Con NecticuT, STATUTES:
Conn. Stat. $195d (1955 Supp.), now Conn. Stat. §6-49
IS ie er eee ee eer eae ‘colic 2,5, 11,22 §
Conn. Stat. , 58796 (1949), now Conn. Stat. $54-80
SEINE hib asi Genscan ebicncnccconsia Nt Gli aatae eee 2,23
MISCELLANEOUS:
D. B. Wright & J. F. Reardon, Connecticut Police
and Proxecutors Manual (Atlantic Law Book Co.,
Harfford Conn. —
2 if ss
»S
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1960 = gees
No. 161
ARTHUR CULOMBE,
: Petitioner, -
: —versus—
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| scans
0h
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF acumen
_ OF THE STATE OF ‘CONNECTICUT
‘BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
Opinion Below
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Errors i is reported.
at 147 Conn. 194, 158 ‘A. 24 239 and appears in Volume IV,
Transcript of Record, p. 55 ff.
J griediotion
The judgment of the Supreme Gourt of Errors was
entered on February 16,°1960. The petition for a writ of
certiorari was filed May 12, 1960, and was granted June 20,
' 1960. The jurisdiction of this court. rests on 28 U.S.C.
§1257 (3).
& Questions ‘ieee
1 W oo ai confession taken from the ‘mentally - _
defective petitioner during the night of Wednesday, Feb-. ff
ruary 27, 1957, after five days of questioning, illegal de-
tention, delaying tactics, lack of counsel, and direct use
of petitioner’s: family, was .so involuntary. as to make its
admission a deprivation of petitioner’s life without due -
process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the confession induced from the feeble- |
minded petitioner on Monday, March 4, 1957, four days /
after he was formally charged with murder, was jnadmis-
‘sible under the Fourteenth Amendment by reason of the |
deceit and misrepresentation used by police to deprivé him’ |
of the services of his counsel. ___ °
3. Whether the confession elicited from the mentally- |
defective petitioner on Sunday, March 3, 1957, three days
‘after he was charged with murder was inadmissible under
the Fourteenth Amendment because of psychological pres-
sures exerted and absence of court-appointed counsel.
Constitutional Provision ———.
The constitutional provision involved | is the Fourteenth
Amnamiiagent.
Statutory Provisions Involved
The statutes involved are Conn. Stat. $1954 (1955 Supp. )» |
‘now Conn.. Stat. 6-49 (1958), infra, Appendix A, p. A-l; 2
and Conn. Stat. 48796 (1949), now. Conn. Stat. $54-80 4
(1958), ts p. A-1. :
hy
3 .
Statement of the Case
(The .parentheticai numbers prefaced by. the letter “T”
refer tu the pages of the: Transcript of Record, Vols. 1-IIL.)
This ease is concerned with the admissibility of three
confessions introduced at the murder ‘trial of Arthur .
Culombe, petitioner. |
I. One confession, State’s Exhibit Z-1, was. taken on
Wednesday, February 27, 1957,*certain contents of
- which were admitted into evidence (T. 005).
II. A second confession, State’s Exhibit EE, was in-
duced Sunday, March 3, 1957, and was admitted
into evidence at the trial of petitioner (T. 952).
a“
lll. The third confession, State’s Exhibit Z, was ob.
tained on Monday, March 4, 1957, and was also
admitted into evidence. (F. 952).
On December 15, 1956, the bodies of Edward. J. Kur-
: : piew: ski and Daniel J. Janowski were found in a gasoline
station in New Britain, Connecticut.. An autopsy per-
formed on the bodies of these men revealed that’ they died
as a result of gunshot ‘wounds i in the head.
‘On December 18, 1956, Lt. Rome of the Connecticut State
Police began an investigation into these New Britain shoot-
ings (T. 239). On February 23, 1957, the petitioner Arthur
Culothbe was taken into police custody at 2:35 P.M. as a’
result of ‘this investigation (T. 168).
Culombe j is a 33-year-old mental defective with a mental
age of nine to nine and one-half, and an intelligence quotient
of sixty (T: 1180, 1289). He is either a moron (T. 1182,
1187, 1283) or an imbecile (T. 1219). An illiterate, he is
unable to read and write except his own signature (T.
1181). Culombe is “enormously suggestible . . . and easily’
ee
tC »~
4 :
influenced” (T. 1189, 1308-9), and “acts purely under : stress
as to reasoning power” (T. (1182). ae |
Pa ‘
He left school at 16 (T. 1168), at which time he had aaa
in a special third grade class’ for slow learners for six
years (T. 1168, 1193-4). After leaving school he was con- ., |
mitted to two state - institutions for the feeble-minded
(T. 1172, 1199, 1218-20, 1223- 24).
The three confessions ‘were elicited during: a ten-day
period, beginning Saturday, February 23, 1957 through
Monday, March 4, 1957...
Saturpay, on 23, 1957
On Saturday, February 23, 1957, Cuilombe was escorted
to St&te Police Headquarters at 2:35 P.M. (T. 168). After. ;
Lt. Rome, officer-in-charge, ‘questioned him (T. 613),°-|
Culombe was taken for a ride.to Coventry and Rocky Hill
for the purpose of being identified (T. 614- 616). This trip
. was taken in the company of three police officers and
Joseph Taborsky, the other suspect (T. 169- 241).
During this trip the State Police allowed Culombe and
Taborsky ‘to/share a bottle of whiskey which Taborsky
had in his’ possession when .he-was arrested earlier. that
day (T. 180-184, 221,.225, 318, 615, 617, 839, 840). The -
* police questioned the, suspects throughout the three-hour
ride (T. 445).
They returned to State Police Siidiinani at 6 PM.
(T. 180-241)., Culombe was questioned by Sgt. Paige, Lt.
_ Rome’s assistant, from 6 P.M. to 8:15 P.M, (T. 191, 244, j
260, 322),-at which time he was driven home to show the |
police his gun collection (T. 169).
Arriving back at headquarters, Culombe -was interro- §
‘gated until midnight~(T. 322, 625-30). Rome. qtestioned [
him one and one-half to two‘hours (T. 244, 268, 338).
sadlttataiaa taitnelt ed bat chet Oe
. °
5
When Rome was not questioning Culombe, other officers
were questioning him (T. 169-339). Altogether, Culombe
was questioned by three or four officers (T. 625). °°
At 10 P.M., midway in the course of the interrogation;
Lt. Rome placed Culombe under arrest (T. 330) on sus-
picion of having committed a-felony (Conn. Stat. §195)
(1955 Supp), infra, Appendix A, p. A-1).
_” While questioning Culombe Saturday evening, the police
ascertained that he was illiterate (T. 276), and that he had
y been in an institution for the feeble-minded (T. 182, 262-
He went to’ bed at midnight Saturday (T. 658).° -
re Culombe was in the company of and questioned ‘by at
least four policemen from 2:30 P.M., until midnight Sat-
.urday (T. 658)—a total of more than nine hours.
- Sunpay, Fesprvary 24,1957) 0 >
On Sunday, Culombe was questioned by State Police °
Officers and a City of Hartford detective (T. 196).
| Culombe was kept in his cell until mid-afternoon, when
he fras brought upstairs for a line-up (T. 631). Later that
afternoon, Sgt. Paige interrogated Culombe (T. 175, 439).
Then the Hartford detective continued the questioning (T..
j 634). Later, Sgt. Paigé joined the detective in this ques- -
aq tioning (T. 684). 7 | s
- After supper, Paige and the Hartford detective resumed
the interrogation, questioning Culombe concerning several
burglaries. (T. _196). Later, Paige questioned Culombe-
™ alone on the subject of stolen canned goods found in
@ Culombe’s house (T. 538, 197). Culombe orally confessed: ~
at this time to stealing these provisions (T. 633). There- -
a
ell cadet eitesit ied entieit ha te nen Oe
¢ ..*
after, Hartford police again qugstioned Culombe (T. 633). |
Lt. Rome also questioned Culombe Sunday night (T. ~..
He was finally ‘taken to his cell late that - (T. 637).
Culombe had been interrogated for at least several hours.
during the afternoon and evening by three officers. —
Monpay, Fesruary 25, 1957
At 9 A.M., on the third‘day of his detention, Culombe
was brofight upstairs from is cell in the State Police
Headquarters for further qitstioning .T. 337-359). . Rome’ f
promised Culombe that he Would be able to obtain counsel
that morning (T: 546, 638). /At noon, after about two hours [
of questioning, Culombe was: taken to the New Britain |
police headquarters (T. 248). There were crowds on both |
sides of the street outside police headquarters (T. 546).
- The police first kept Culombe in the Detective Bureau for }
a couple of hours (T. 639), then booked him for breach ff
. of peace with bail set at. $25,000 (T. 248). He was then |
fingerprinted and. photographed (T. 596). |
. The police took Culombe out through the a and f
drove him to State Police Headquarters in Hartford (T. F
641). Officers questioned: Culombe during the drive (T. fj
642). He was logged in at State Police Headquarters #1 at |
~ 2 P.M. (T. 545). poll
. After being questioned by a : New Britain Metective (Tt
642), Culombe was taken to his cell for about. an hour.
Questioning was then resumed by Sgt. Paige (T:.643, 696), }
Lt. Rome and one other officer (T. 643). . :
That evening Culombe was further interrogated iw Lt.
Rome (T. 248-249, 545), Sgt. Paige (T. 404, 441) and
Officer Jaconis (T. 559). A statement was taken at that
time concerning stolen-canned goods found in Culombe’s
home (‘T. 559-705). '
.s
©
-
7.
Culoinbe was questioned’ for two hours in the morning
and for similar periods in the afternoon and evening—
a total of 4 to 7 hours. 2
There is evidence that Culombe was sworn at and threat¢
ened (T. 649), kicked in the ribs (T. 645), and his wife
threatened with prosecutionconcerning theft of the canned
goods if he did not confess. (T. 645-646). ,
TvugsbDay, Fepruary 26, 1957
On the morning of the fourth day of Culombe’s deten-
tion, the State Police took him to the New Britain Police -
* Court (T. 545). Crowds lined the streets in front of the
7 court (T. 546). Threats were made by members of the mob
7 (T. 855), Culombe was afraid of the crowd (T. 652). —
‘In the courtroom, photographers took flashbulb ‘pictures
of Culombe (T. 547) who, during the entire proceeding, was
confined in a wire gage at (ge rear of the room (T. 247).
There was a large crowd between the cage and the judge’s
bench which prevented Culombe from seeing or hearing
the judge or otherwise participating in the proceeding (T.
- Culombe was not represented by counsel (T. 297), al-
though Connecticut law. provides for the appearance of the
ij Public Defender at such a local court! Conn. Stat. §8796
(1949), Appendix A, p. A-1. Culombe was charged with
breach of the peace, bond was set in the amount of $25,000,
and the case was continued for a week (T. 249-767).
§ The court issued a mittimus ordering that Culombe be —
taken to-and kept in the county jail “until he be discharged
by due process of law” (T. 768).
_The State Police disobeyed the mittimns (T. 952): They
did not take him directly to the county jail, but held him
at headquarters for interrogation for at least 6 hours that
2
ce Wepxespay, Fepnvany 27, 1957
— late
8
\
day: and ight. before taking-him to the Hartford County |
wn Sara 8 50 (T. 769). First, they questioned him at |
the scene of i shooting: (T. 548), arid then took him to f
headquarters (T. 303) where Sgt. Paige, Lt. Rome and ;
another officer interrogated him for 2 more hours (T..547-
¢999, 654).
While Culombe was: being questioned, his wife and two
minor daughters were brought to headquarters against
their will. The police caused Mrs. Culombe to confront and
~ aceuse her husband (T. 251, 403, 380, 556).
Lt. Rome’ S assistant, Set. Paige, characterized this ques-
- tionine period and ¢onfrontation of Culombe by his wife E
and family as “an ordeal” fot Culombe (T. 449).
At 7:30 P.M., petitioner was taken to his cell at State |
Police Headquarters, but he was not left.alone. Sgt. Paige
‘ wente with him and questioned him —— (T: . 423-24,
452 53)... .
Paige stopped questioning Culombe only because’ the
latter was so “Upset that he broke down and sobbed (T. 400).
Thereupon, he was finally taken to the county jail at
8 30 P.M. (T. 769-770).
By the time Culombe was finally taken to the county
jail he had been under constant police surveillance for more
than 9 hours that day and night, and had been interrogated J
most of that time. Although the police deny having beaten |
&
‘him, the jailer at Hartford County Jail testified that §
‘Culombe told him that he “was kicked around by the State |
Police” (T. 712).
$
At 10 A.M., on the morning of the accused’s fifth day of §
—. (T. 769-770)"the State Police knowingly vio- f
the mittimus issued the New Britain Police Court
*.
ea
> i
9 ‘
; Lue % +3
(T..427), by illegally removing Culombe against his will
from the county jail. The State Police unlawfully kept
him in their custody until a confession was elicited (T. 952).
Culombe was intensively questioned from 1:30 P.M. on
Wednesday (T. 399) until the early hours of Thursday
morning (T. 504), when he: finally signed a confession
(Exhibit Z-1), in which he admitted being present at the
time of tlie robbery, but denied any killing.
At 3:30 P.M., after two hours of questioning at Head-
quarters by three officers in succession (T. 253, 494, 582),
Culombe was taken to his-home (T. 560). He was accom-
panied by four police officers (T. 388). Lt. Rome and
others questioned him on the way home, at his home, and
while driving in and about Hartford (T. 389-394). Some
time after 6 P.M., Culombe was returned to State Police .
Headquarters, and subsequent to a period of questioning
_ (T. 499-501), he had dinner in the company of the State
' Police officers (T, 501), - = * cans
At 8 P.M., intensive interrogations were resumed (T.
399, 572), conducted by Lt. Rome, two other State Police
officers and a caunty detective. Sgt. Paige testified that
at this time Culombe was tired, his clothing was a “sorry
~ sight,” and he had “been threugh quite arordeal” (T. 400).
At 10:55 ‘P.M, a written statement from Culombe was
~ begun ‘(T. 486-487, 502; State’s Exhibit Z-1). The portion
of that statement relevant to the New Britain shooting
Was started at 12:30 A.M., Thursday morning (T. 504).
The method used’ for constructing this statement was
as follows: Lt: Rome would ask a question; Culombe would
answer; Rome would put this answer into narrative form;
‘and then this narrative wouldgbe typed (T. 902, 572, 573).
The statement was composed by Rome using his own words, ~
syntax and grainmar rather than that of Culombe (T.
40u, 580, 581). The statement was read to. Culombe; who,
10
v
being illiterate, was unable to read it himself. He then
signed it (State’s Exhibit Z-1). In this statement he ad-
Iitted his presence at the New Britain shooting, but denied
killing anyone, stating that Taborsky, another suspect, f
killed both victims. ‘This statement was completed at ap-
proximately 1 AcM., Thursday morning (T. 398).
Culombe had been questioned for almost twelve hours
_ that day and night, his only break from formal interro-
_, gation occurring when he ate with the ‘police. Thus, five
‘days after Culombe Was taken into custody a confession
was finally extracted.
During these five days of qudetioning’ Colombe had been
interrogated at least 9 hours on Saturday, several hours :
in the afternoon. and evening on Sunday, 4 to 7% hours on |
Monday, 7 hours on Tuesday, and more than 11 hours on
Wednesday—a total in excess of 31 hours.
~The prolonged and Intensive questioning by the police
was aggravated not only by petitioner’s feeble-mindedness,
but by the lack of counsel, the illegal detention, the delaying
tactics, and the use of petitioner’s wife and family.
_ (a) Culombe lacked counsel from his arrest on Saturday,
- February 23, 1957 until the following Friday, March 1, when
the court-appointed a Special Public Defender (T. 742).
During the five days preceding the confession induced late
Wednesday night, February 27, Culombe had asked for an
- attorney on hey least 6 occasions. — ~
Culombe first requested counsel on Batusiay evening
(T. 304, 511, 626, 688, 689). Counsel was discussed Sunday
night by Culombe and Lt. Rome (T. 359). On Monday |
morning, Lt. Rome promised Culombe that he would have §
an*opportunity to get counsel: that morning (T. 546, 638,
639), but the promise was unfulfilled (T: 641). Lt. Rome |
denied Culombe’s request for an attorney Monday -night
y.
aed
ay a ae namie ref OI ren ene styrene) te tw
*
ll
(T. 645). Culombe was told by Rome that he would be able.
to retain counsel on Tuesday morning ('T. 648), but never
y g J
was given the chance (TF. 650). Tuesday afternoon, Culombe-
asked for a lawyer (T. 863). Culombe asked to see the
State’s Attorney on Wednesday afternoon, but instead he
was interrogated further (T. 666).
On Thursday, February 28, twelve hours after his con-
fession, Culombe was brought before the Superior Court,
where he was promised counsel of his choice if possible
(T. 1023). Special Public Defender Thomas F. McDonough
was actually appointed on Friday, March 1 and saw
Culombe for the first time either on that or the following
day (T. 675).
(b) The State Poliee extended’ the period ‘during which
3° Culombe was questioned by delaying tactics and illegal
detention. The statute under which Culombe-was argested ~
on suspicion of felony Saturday night (T. 330) recites that
} ®ny person so arrested “shall be presented with reasonable .
| promptness before proper authority.” ‘Conn. Stat. §195d
(1955 Supp.), infra, Appendix A, p..A-1. Culombe was not
presented on a felony charge until the following Thursday
in Superior Court, six days later. *
Lt. Rome conceded that Culombe could have been booked
on Sunday and presented on Monday, but Was not (T. 333).
On Monday, Culombe was taken to New Britain. The State
Police allowed photographers to take pictures of petitioner
for an hour or so, thereby causing a delay which prevented
his presentment in police court that day (T. 333).
Lt. Rome testified that this postponement was to enable
the police to question the suspects further {T. 334-335)...
Culombe was finally presented in New Britain Police
Court on Tuesday, three days after arrest. He was not
- presented on a felony, but on a technical charge of breach
of peace (T. 332). The accused was not warned of his
“12
_rights nor allowed to approach the bench in order to get °
a hearing. The case was continued. The purpose of this:
- procedure in the New Britain Police Court was to enable
the police to make further interrogations (T. 302).
After this proceeding, Culombe was detained in violation ,
of the .mittimus for the next seven hours. The next day,
Culombe was unlawfully removed from’the county jail (T.
952) and taken to State Police Headquarters. It was dur-
ing this latter unlawful detention that Culombe was induced
- to confess his presence at the scene of the shootings.
The postp@ement of Culombe’s presentment and the
illegal removal from jail gave the State Police the addi-
tional time and opportunity necessary for obtaining this t
confession (T. 302, 334-335). . ak
(c) The State Police used petitioner’s wife and two’
‘minor children as instruments: to obtain a confession (T.
539). In fact, Lt..Rome declared that the reason he brought
Mrs. Culombe to headquarters was “to use her as another
way of getting a confession” from her husband (T. 370-1).
Paige questioned Mrs. Culombe at home on Saturday
night, with her husband’s knowledge (T.-691, 623).
On Sunday night Mrs. Culombe was taken to State Police
Headquarters (T. 198-9, 694). Although she did not see
her husband, Culombe heard-her crying, and recognized
her voice and that of Lt. Rome while she was questioned ]§
in the next room at headquarters.
On Tuesday, Lt. Rome, after. talking, to Sion Culombe }
at her home for about*one-half hour (T. 249),-asked her
to-come to headquarters (T. 250). Although she did not §
want to go, especially with the children (T. 722) she was §
taken to State Police Headquarters accompanied by her
thirteen- and five-year-old daughters (T. 525, 721, 725-26).
so. :
—_
At headquarters tha night the following occurred:
Rome first talked to Mrs. Culombe (T. 250). He then -
talked to Mrs. Culombe and her husband together (T. 230). -—-*
In Rome’s presence, husband and wife talked together for
about 15 minutes (T. 542). Mrs. Culombe told her husband
to tell the truth (T. 739), and then accused him of com-
mitting the crime (T: 528, 541). :
A statement damaging to :her father was taken from
Joanne, Culombe’s thirteen-year-old daughter (T. 529-530).
Joanne was also used to elicit # confession. when Lt. Rome
said to her, in Culombe’s presence, “Honey, come here and
tell your father what you told us” (T. 593, 657).
- Culombe could have seen that his wife was upset at their
Tuesday meeting (T. 725-6). Paige said that Culombe was
upset this night because he had been talking to his wife |
(T. 449), and because of the “use” of the family (T. 688).
In fact, Culombe was so upset that he sobbed in front of
Sgt. Paige when the latter attempted to question ‘him fur-
ther in his cell after he met with his wife (T. 440, 549, 657).
On Wednesday, Culombe was taken to his home about
4 P.M. where he talked to his wife for approximately 15
minutes. (T. 607). Cujgmbe told her that he did not want
to cause her any embarrassment insofar as the neighbors
were concerned by having-the police come to his home
(T’. 589). Culombe made up his mind to make the state ent - .
one-half to one hour after seeing his wife, because of abuse
to the family, the pressures exerted upon him, and a desire
to be left alone (T. 671-672). ]
Culombe’s five-year-old child,-Sandy,-appeared sick to
_ him on Wednesday (T. 668). tt ee
Culombe was aware that his wife was being questioned
by the police on® Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday, and Wed-
nesday (T. 702). He was being accused by his wife and
~~
14
“thle | prese nce of his children at hile wt ind i eln-
barrassment to his family. He said at the trial that: he
‘confessed to save his family this embarrassment (T, 669).
‘Tivnepay, Fesrvuary 28, 1957
Culombe was presented in the Superior Court for Hart-
ford County on a bench warrant (T. 1022). He was charged
with murder by the court (T. 1022). At the request of.
-Columbe, the court stated that it would appoint Attorney
Thomas F. McDonough, since deceased, as his Special Pub-
‘lie Defender if he were available. Culombe was remanded
to the custody of the State Police (T. 700, 1024) for further
_investigation. In the afternoon, Culombe was questioned
‘by New York City detectives about crimes which had been
committed within that jurisdiction (T. 443). Culombe re-
mained that night at State,Police Headquarters.
es
Frivay, Marcu 1, 1957
Attorney McDonough v was appointed counsel for Culonibe
‘by the Superior Court for Hartford County (T. 742).
Culombe was used ‘in inducing Taborsky ‘to make a -con-
fession (T. 748). Culombe was eid at Headquarters for
the night. — ae oe
‘ices Marcu 2, 1957
A state-appointed doctor and a psyghiatrist performed
an intensive two-hour examination of Culomhe in the morn-.
ing. Although the testimony is ambiguous, McDonough mét
Culombe for the first time either Saturday, or perhaps, the
previous afternoon (T. 675). Culombe remained at State
Po..ce Headquarters throughout his eighth day of confine-
nient. He was restless and nervous, accofding to the police
rm = ‘At 10 PM, Culombe orally adinitted to State
Policeman Fersch, liis guard, that he had killed the service:
station attendant (T. 908-909). Fersch took no notes of ‘the
contents of this statement (T. 917).
‘Sunpay, Marci 3, 1957 |
On Sunday morning, Culombe was taken from his cell in
State Puliee Headquarters upstairs to the interrogation
room next to Lt. Rome’s office (T. 910). .There he signed
a statement (State's exhibit EE) in which it was admitted
that he killed the attendant. |
The same method as that used by Rome. on Wednesday _
-night—the paraphrasing in Kome’s words of Culombe’s
answers to interrogatories—was used in drafting and elicit-
. ing this confession (T. 910-11, 1092-3).
A State policeman testified that Culombe’s answers could _
have been transcribed (T. 922). He also testified that
State’s Exhibit-EE was the statement of Lt, Rome rather ©
than that of Culombe (T. 922).
Culombe’s attorney, the Special Public Defender, was not
- present during this questioning and had. not been notified
that Such interrogation was to take place (T. 910, 1092).
(m Sunday afternoon, Culombe’s attorney ordered the
. State Police to leave Culombe alone and return him to jail
(T. 295, 676). Rome knew that it was counsel’s prerogative
to ask him to transfer Culombe to jail (TT. 508). This was —
done immediately (T. 295).
Monpay, Marcu 4, 19%
It had been decided by the State Police on Sunday that
Culombe should sign another confession (T. 503). This
confession was to by an excerpt .f the conféssion taken
- on Wednesday, .February 27 (State’s Exhibit Z-1), and
would pertain only to the New Britain shooting. As a re-—
6
a
16
sult of this decision, a new statement was drawn up by
reproducing the Wednesday night confession (Z-1), ex-
ciuding all material not pertinent to the ew Britain crime
(T. 503-504).
The time on this excerpted confession was changed by
the police from 10:55 P.M., Wednesday, to 12:30 A.M..
Thursday morning to coincide .with the time when the
interrogating officers claimed the statement. about New
Britain was commenced (T. 504-505).
On Monday, Lt. Rome and Officer O’Brien went to the
County Jail, taking with them. the pre-typed statement -
composed the previous day (T. 505). Lt. -Rome. told
Culombe that the visit was “okayed” by his Special Public
Defender, and that all he wanted was for Culombe to sign
some papers-“you forgot to sign” (T. 676). When Gulombe
said that McDonough had told him he didn’t want him to
sign anything, Rome said that McDonough “knew about
this, and I guess it is.alright” (T. 677). oO
In reality, Culombe’s attorney, knew nothing about nor
approved such an action, and particularly was not apprised ‘p>
of the fact that Rome was going to disobey his specific
order to leave his client alone (T. 507-508). |
Rome knew that this procedure was. against the Special
* Public Defender’s orders (T. 511). When questioned on ff
:this matter at the trial by McDonough, Rome said, “I don’t 2}
take any orders from Mr. McDonough,” which answer
brought an admonition from the court (T. 507). Lt. Rome
testified that he did nat feel it necessary to tell Culombe’s
attorney in advance about the signing (T. 510-511), because
he “could do better without” McDonough present (T.-511).
At the trial, the W ednesday night confession, Exhibit
Z-1, was discussed .and referred’ to while the jury was
present (T. 962-963). In this confession Culombe admitted
y
17
~
4
- to being present at the murder scene, but stated that Tabor-
sky killed both of the deceased (State’s Exhibit Z).
fhe Sunday confession, State’s Exhibit EE, was’ intro-
diced (T. 912) and admitted into evidence (T. 952).
Culombe admitted responsibility for the death of ‘one of
the deceased’in this confession (State’s Exhibit’ EE).
- The Monday confession, State’s Exhibit Z, was intro-
, duced (T. 396) and admitted into evidence (T. 952). This
confession, except for a few changes in sentence structure
- and references to time (T. 504), was a copy of Exhibit Z-1,
confession taken the previous Wednesday. In the Monday
confession Culombe denied responsibility for either of the’
murders (State’s Exhibit Z). = ”
Culombe was found guilty of murder in the first degree
_ and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Errors
of the State of Connecticut affirmed the verdict and udg-
ment.
Summary of Argument .”
The Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut
erred: aa ;
‘1. In affirming the admission into evidence of the in-
voluntary confession extracted on Wednesday, February 27,
‘1957, from the feeble-minded petitioner’ who, without
henefit of counsel, was questioned more than thirty-one
hours over a five-day period, during which time petitioner
Was subject to illegal detention and unreasonable delays.
in his presentment, and in the course of which questioning
the police.confronted petitioner with his accusing wife and
daughter. The admission of this confession conflicts with
decisions of this court and has deprived petitioner of his
life Without the due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
18
2. in ditwins' the admission into evidence of the con-
fession made by the mentally defective petitioner” on
Monday, March+4, 1957, four days after he’ was formally
charged with anurder, which confession was obtained by.
the deceit and the*false representation of the police when
they assured petitioner that his court-appointed counse|
had sanctioned his signing the confession; said admission
has deprived petitionér of his life without due process of
law under the Fourteenth Amendment. ik
3. ‘In affirming the admission into evidence of the con-
fession made Sunday, ~March 3, 1957, by ‘the mentally
defective. petitioner, three days after the was formally
charged with murder, the confession having been induced
by the employment of psyehological pressures by the police
in the absence of court-appointed counsel, which admission.
has deprived petitioner of his life without said due process
of law.
~~“ ARGUMENT |
. This case is concerned with the admissibility of three
confessions introduced at the murder trial of petitioner,
Arthur Culombe. Each confession is discussed in a sepa-
rate argument. \
I.
_ Petitioner’s Confession Made the Night of Wednesday,
February 27, 1957, Was Involuntary and Its Use Violated
Due Process of Law Under the Fourteenth Amendment.
.This case poses the issue as to whether a confession
signed by the defendant in the course of extensive and in- -
tensive interrogation by the police was. ney and
thus not admissible at his ‘subsequent trial.
19
The use-of a defendant’s confession which was obtained
by coercion, whether physical or mental, in a State criminal -
trial, is forbidden by the Fourteenth: Amendment. Leyra
v. Denno, 347 U.S, 556, 558. Even though evidence other
than the confession establishes the guilt or corroborates
the confession, the presence Of an: involuntary confession
is sufficient reason to set aside the conviction. . Blackburn
v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206.
Yontroversion of the facts is an inescapable consequence
' of secret inquisitional practices. Ashcraft v. Tenn., 322 .
US. 143, 152. In this case. there is évidence, which -may
be controverted, that petitioner was physically and verbally
abused (T. 644-5), threatened (T. 644-6), and put in fear
by mobs (T. 652, 656). Under the rule in Brown v. Missis-
sippi, 297 U.S. 278, these coercive measures would be suffi-
cient to exelude the confession. . :
Even if the evidence of physical violence is disregarded,
the undisputed admissions of the State Police alone sig-
nificantly raise the constitutional question as whether or
not the confession of petitioner was voluntary. This court |
has the duty to make an independent examination of the
record of the trial proceedings when the question of volun-_
-tariness of a confession is presented. Chambers v. Florida,
(809 U.S. 227, 228-229. It must look to the undisputed ‘evi-
dence and to the uncontroverted testimony of the defendant.
Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U.S. 35, 62. |
It-is submitted that the undisputed evidence of Culombe’s .
‘veble-mindedness, his -prolonged and. exhaustive question-
ing, the illegal police procedures, the actual use of peti- .
‘tioner’s wife and family to aid in’ the extraction of a
. Confession, and the lack of requested counsel, indicates that -
petitioner’ mental freedom was so limited as to make his
confession on the night of Wednesday, February 27,. 1957 .
involuntary under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Pal
a
> 20 .
(1) Mental Defectiveness. Petitioner has been a mental
defective since infancy. Having progressed only to a spe-.
cial third grade class for slow learners by the age of 16,
he is an illiterate who can neither read nor write, nor sign
his name in full without often misspelling it.
Medical and scientific tests indicate that Culombe is an
_ imbecile or’a moron, and a feeble-minded person with an
intelligence quotient of 60, or a mental age of nine to nine
and whalf years; that he is and ‘always has been a high!v
suggestible person, easily led, with a lack of understanding
‘and judgment; and that for a long period of time he suf-
fered from a brain abnormality. He is of adult age, with
a child’s mind (T. 1163 ff, 1175 ff, 1180 ff, 1182, 1184 ff,
1199 ff, 1217 ff, 1221 ff, 1289, 1294-5, 1311, 1317-1323;
Culombe’s Exhibits ¢, 8, 9; 10,11).
This court has considered mental defects as important
in evaluating whether a confession is coerced. Payne v.
Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 567 (mentally dull 19-year-old);
Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 193 (mental illness and low
mentality); and Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (psy-
chosis). It is submitted that the nature and extent of
petitioner’s defect reduced his power of resistance and f
made him easy prey for the sustained questioning and |
psychological pressures of the police. Stein v. People of the
State of New York, 346 U.S..156, 185. -
(2) Sustained Interrogation. The State Police began
questioning Culombe on Saturday, February 23, 1957, with f
the object of obtaining a confession (T. 399). Petitioner |
was interrogated for five days at the end of which time
he confessed. ‘This questioning was generally in intervals —
of three to six hours, which were connected by trips with
the police to obtain evidence, by trips to-the New Britain
Police Headquarters and Police Court, and by meals with
the police. When awake, he was rarely left alone.
21
On Saturday, petitioner was questioned from 2:30 P.M.
until midnight. On Sunday, he was questioned for several!
hours in the afternoon and evening. He was again ques-
tioned on Monday in the morning and intermittently after
- his return from the New Britain Police Headquarters until
some time in the-evening, a total of Sour to seven hours.
On Tuesday, he was questioned continuously for 7 hours.
This. particular questioning period was characterized by
Lt. Rome’s assistant as an “ordeal.” On -the day of the
confession (Wednesday), petitioner was questioned from
1:30 P.M. until the early hours of ‘the following morning
(Thursday). The questioning was performed in relays by
teams of police (T. 257), or by single officers.
At the end of this extended questioning petitioner signed
a confession. (State’s Exhibit Z-1), admitting that he was
present at the time of the crime.
This court has repeetedly heid that persistent question-
ing 1aises the issue of the involuntariness of a confession.
Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62, 63-65; Johnsdn v.
Pennsylvania, 340 U.S. 881. In Turner, the defendant wax
subjected to five days of relay questioning from four to
six hours a day, no single period exceeding three hours—
a total of 23 hours. In Johnson, the defendant was qués-.
tioned for a total of six hours during a five-day period, in
sessions of fifteen minutes to one and one-half hours.
Johnson v. Pennsylvania, supra, referring to Comm. v.
Johnson, 365 Pa. 303, 312-313. In the case at bar, Culombe
was questioned for five days for-a total exceeding 31 hours.
In addition, there was the cogent factor that he was a
mental defective.
(3) Megat Police Procedures and Delaying Tactics, It |
is submitted that the methods. by which the’ State Police
managed to question the petitioner for five days before
90
presenting him on the charge of murder is most relevant _
to the question of ‘coercion.
Although taken into custedy early Saturday afternoon,
petitioner, was not officially arrested until 10 P/M. that
night. This arfest was made under Conn. Stat. §195d (1955
Supp.), infra,’Appendix A, p. A-1, which empowers mém- J
bers of the state police department to arrest, without —
previous complaint and warrant, any person who such
officer has reasonable grounds to believe has cominitted
a felony. This statute also requires that a person arrested’
thereunder “shall be presented with reasonable promptness
before proper authority.”
According to Lt: Rome of the State Police, Culombe could:
have been booked on Sunday at Police Headquarters and
presented in court- on Monday (T. 333-334). This would
have been in accordance with the rules of the State Police,
which state: _ bys i ae
_ “In the State Police Department, it is our policy te
" present any person arrested before proper authority ©
within 24 hours of the arrest unless some urgent eir:
cumstances requires a longer detention.” Connecticut fj
State Police training school lectures, quoted in Wright |
& Reardon, Connecticut Police.and Prosecutors Manual
52 (1959). ee ee
In fact, Culombe was not presented until Tuesday noon,
86 hours after formal grrest and 94 hours after being taken
in custody: Lt. Rome testified that thi?’ deliberate delay
was to enable the State Police to question.Culombe longer
(T. .332-334). |
It is also the practice of the state police to make an
entry in a Log Book when an arrest is‘made (T. 534-535).
The. fact that Culombe’s arrest Saturday night was not
recorded. in this Log Book (TI. 536, 545) i& evidence of
a ;
: /
oe]
ae On.
,
e
another deviation from standard procedures, thus depriv- —
ing the ficcused of an objective record of the specific time
he was arrested without warrant.
‘When petitioner was finally presented on a holding
¢ charge of breach of the peace, he was taken through crowds
&’ to the New Britain Police Court, put in a wire cage at the
rear of the court, was not presented before the bench, was
cut off from view of the bench hy a large crowd of spec-
tators and photographers, and was not advised of any of .- .
his constitutional rights and privileges. He was charged |
with breach of the peace, placed under $25,000 bond, and
the case was continued until the following week, without
plea being entered. Throughout*this proceeding no counsel
was furnished Culomhe, notwithstanding the fact-that he - °
. Was promised one by Lt. Rome (T. 648), and notwithstand-
ing the fact that Conn, Stat. §8796 (1949), infra, Appendix.-
A, p. A-1, authorizes the ‘public defender to appear on
belialf of’ an accused in such a local court. The State Police
exploited this mock proceeding to ‘their ‘advantage. By
obtaining a continuance the police were thus able to con- -
tinue their sustained interrogation for 36 hours. Had
counsel been furnished to ‘Culombe, cogent argument could
have been made that the case é¢ither be-dismissed or tried
at that time, or in the alternative a writ of habeas corpus :
could have issued. Without counsel, petitioner was pre-
vented from participating in this proceeding. © |
Furthermore, a mittimus was issued by the New Britain
Police Court directing that Culombe be taken to Hartford
County Jail-until released by due process of law. The
State Police, however, did not take him directly, ‘to the
county jail. Instead, they brought him to State Police Head-
(uarters and questioned him there for six hours. ‘The ‘fol-
lowing day, Wednésday, at 10 A.M., the Police unlawfully
éemoved him from’ the jail and transported him, as if a
chattel, to Headquarters for further questioning.
24
Néipadnauitie, the trial court made a specific and u unequir 0-
cal finding that Cuiombe was illegally detained, “in so faras
the so-called borrowi ing from the jail is concerned” (T.952).
Delays in presentment and illegal detentions are relevant
-. factors in determining the admissibility of confessions.
® Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 567; Fikes v. Alabama.
352-U.S. 191, 197; Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62,
- 64; and Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 187. After hold-
ing Culombe on suspicion of felony for two days, they
delayed presenting him .before proper authority for an
extra twenty-four hours so as to gain time for additional
interrogation. Then, following the New Britain police
court proceeding, the police’ illegally detained him and then :
subjected him to an “ordeal” of questioning. . Failing: in
their efforts to obtain a confession during this period, they F
illegally removed Culombe from jail the next day and kept °F
him for fourteen hours until he confessed. With con. |
fession in hand, the police” finally brought him before the
Superior Court, where: he was formally charged with the
“murder about which he had been interrogated for the
preceding five days.
(4) Use of Wife and Family. -The coéreive tactics of the
State Police are further illustrated by the recurrent use
of petitioner’s wife and two minor, daughters as a means
of extracting a confession. Mrs. Culombe was questioned
at home Saturday night, and at State Police Headquarters
Sunday and Monday nights. Lt. Rome admitted that. he
used Mrs. Culombe to obtain.a confession, and that she
was in fact a ‘help when, on Tuesday night,.she ooriige =
her husband and told him to confess (T. 370-371).
Spano'v. ‘People of the State of New York, 360 U:S. a
318-319. Culombe’s thirteen-year-old daughter: was also
asked in petitioner’s presence to repeat statements which §
incriminated ‘her father (T. 553): Further, the knowledge {
25
of the presence at Headquarters of his sick five-year-old
daughter depressed him (T. 529-533). This studied and _
calculated use of the wife and two children had a decisive
and obviously coercive effect in compelling the accused to
confess, so as to spare his family the further embarrass-
ment, shame, aud anxiety they’ were caused to suffer at the .
hands of the police authorities g'. 089, 598).
(5) Language of Confession. Contributing to the evi-
dence of the coercive action of the police was the fact that
the confession was not in Culombe’s language and syntax,
but in that of his interrogator, Lt. Rome. Blackburn v.
Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 207-208. Such a confession is bound
to be colored hy the purpose of the questioner.
(6) Lack of Counsel. Throughout this entire five-day
period Culombe was without counsel. He. expressly asked
for-counsel on Saturday, but allegedly because he did not
name any specific attornéy, the State Police cecline ay
call anyone. It ig undisputed that Lt. Rome broke his e
press promise to provide him counsel oh Monday (T. 546,
638). In total,/Culombe asked for counsel on six occasions.
Lack of counsel for whatever reason is relevant to the
question of coercion. Hdley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 598,
600-1; Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 960, 567; Blackburn-v:
Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 207. ‘ 7
-Each of these factors: (1) petitioner’s. feeble-minded- . -
ess; (2) the relentless and intensive questioning over a -
five-day period; (3) the illegal removal and detention;
(+) the direct use of Culombe’s wife and children; (5) the
ghosted language of the confessions; and (6) lack of
- counsel—may singly be sufficient to prove coercion. This
court has consistently discountenanced each and every one
of the foregoing factors as being constitutionally obnoxious.
a
26
Certainly, cumulativély.and jointly they portray a pro-
cedure so corrupt with defects in the denial of due process,
so violative of the basic legal and constitutional rights of
the accused that, under no circumstances, could the con-
fession obtained thereby be consideréa but involuntary and
unreliable.
_ Although this confession (Exhibit Z-1) was not admitted
into evidence as a full exhibit, the use made of this con-
fession could hardly have been more effective had its
details, been put into evidence. It was substantially in-
corporated verbatim as Exhibit Z (T. 962-963). Exhibit
Z-1 was referred to during the trial as the basis for Fx- —
hibit Z (T. 962-963). This court has held that a coerced. —
confession, even though it is not admitted into evidence,
is a sufficient reason for reversal if it has not been insulated
from the trial. Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 407-410.
The use of this confession dehied petitioner of his con-
stitutional rights under the due process clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment.
II.
The Admission of the Confession of Monday, March 4,
1957, Coerced by Police Trickery and Made Without: Bene-
. fit of Retained Counsel Four Days After a Formal —_—
of Murder, Violated Due Process of Law.
This case poses the issue as to what e&tent defendant's .
. constitutional right to retained counsel should be protected
after he has been formally charged with the crime of
murder.
Culombe was diieais with murder on ace. Feb-
ruary 28 in the Superior Court for Hartford County (T.
1022). The court appointed a Special Public Defender
OT
to act as petitioner’s a “After this hearing he was
no longer a mere suspect: Cf. Crooker v. California, 357
U.S. 433 with Spano v. People of the State of New York.
360 U.S. 315, 325. . | ;
The police were not satisfied with the férm of the state-
ment which had’ been elicited Wednesday night, - Febru-
ary 27, 1957 (State’s Exhibit Z-1). It was decided at a
conference between Lt. Rome and his superior officer to
_ prepare a copy of that statement which would exclude all
information not relevant to the New Britain crime. This
was prepared on Sunday, March 3 (T. 503).
On Monday, March 4, Lt. Rome took this excerpted copy
5 tothe county jail to get Culombe’s signature (T. 505).
On the previous afternoon, if not prior thereto, the
Special Public Defender held a conversation with Lt. Rome
in which he ordered the state policeman to remove Culombe .
trom the State Police Headquarters and return him to :
7 the county jail (T. 507). MeDonough also explicitly di-
@ rected Lt. Rome. to leave Culombe elone and not bother
_ him any mofe (T. 507). | ae
In defiance of this permissible and reasonable order by
defendant’s counsel, Lt. Rome took the prefabricated con-
fession to the jail the next day. After Rome explained
and rgad it aloud, Culombe signed it. Before he signed :
it, however, Culombe questioned Rome about his counsel
* not being there, and Rome answered that it was “okayed”
bythe Special Public Defender, which was untrue. 3
In manifest disregard of the ideal standards of honesty,
fairness and decency established for law enforcement
bodies, Lt. Rome, for the purpose of securing his execution
of the revised confession, used fraud and deceit in de. -
priving petitioner of the services of his court-appointed
= counsel. That this was not an act of inadvertence or
o
28
thoughtlessness became. clear during the murder trial when,
Lt. Rome testified that the didn’t think .it- was necessary’
to notify Culombe’s counsel of his intention to obfain a
-confession from the defendant (T. 510-511): When asked
Whether the Special Public - Defender had asked him to
leave Culombe alone, Lt. Rome contemptuously ‘responded, -
“I don't take my,orders from Mr. McDonough,” ‘using a
tone of voice Which brought an admonition from the court
(T. 507). °
It has been often jndic ially noted that our system of
justice may be abused by overzealous prosecutors or police,
At certain stages in the judicial proceedings a,defendant's
constitutional rights can only be secured throu
whose knowledge of the intricacies of erimina
procedure’ gives protection from such abuse. §ych. inn-
portant rights were violated or disregarded in the handling
of this case. Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 54.
In a capital ‘case a defendant has an absolute right to
counsel at trial. Powell v. State of Alabama? 287 U.S. 45.
Effective counsel has also been held to be a constitutional
right at stages prior to trial. Chandler v. Fretag, 348
U.S. 3, 9, 10. In a recent decision this court said:
Under our system of justice an indictment is supposed
_ to be followed by an arraignment and a trial. At every
stage in those proceedings the accused has an abso-
lute right to a lawyer’s help if the case is one in which
a death sentence may be imposed. . . . Indeed, the right
to the assistance of counsel whom the accused has him--
self —— is absolute whatever the offense for which
he 3: rial. Spano v. New Fork, 360 U:S. 315, 327.
It is submitted that the admissibility of the Monday morn-
ing confession (Exhibit Z) at petitioner's. murder trial
. ’ # : a . ‘
29
presents the same important issues of constitutional rights - ,
which pervaded Spano. °
There is no claim that petitioner had an absolute righ:
‘to counsel during: the first five days of questioning. ‘The.
claim of denial of counsel is directed, as in Spano;-to that
. period after petitioner had been formally charged with
murder, after the court had designated his eounsel, and
after such counsel Had explicitly ordered thé police to stop,
interrogating him. The elicitation of a confession under®*
such conditions raises grave constitutional questions,
_ The aggravated circumstances surrounding the denial oi
counsel at the time of this confession. present an even more
serious breach of due process, which amount to coercion,
Culombe Jiad been interrogated intermittently for nine day»
when this prefabricated confession containing the para-
phrasings of Lt. Rome was proffered for ‘his’ signature.
Not only did the petice fail to inform petitioner’s counsel
of the proposed statement, thereby assuring his absence, |
hut they falsely represented that he had given: permission :
for his client to sign the document. The use of chicanery
ii gaining a confession from an accused after he has been
formally charged’ with murder -has kecently been attacked
by this court. Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315. Here, the
deceit was used not only: to obtain petitioner’s signature, -
iut also to allay his fear stemming from the fact his cour.
sel Was not present.
Furthermore, the subject of this secret interrogation
was an illiterate, highly suggestible moron who had never
. passed the third grade. This court has considered the psy-
chological disabilities of a defendant as an important
factor in determining whether or not there-has beeh-a con-
‘titutional denial of counsel where the need for such is
A
poe
wae
30
compelling. House v. -Mayo, 326 U.S. 42, 45; Spano v.
People of the State of New York, 360 U.S. 315, 325.
The admission into evidence of a confession obtained
through deceyful practices which eifectively denied coun-
sel to the mentally-defective accused deprived petitioner
of his life without due process of law.
' The Admission of the Confession of Sunday, March 3,
1957 Made as a Result of Psychological Pressures in the
_ Absence of Court-Appointed Counsel Three Days After
. court-appointed counsel.
Petitioner Was Formally —* With memneed Violated.
Due Process of Law.
This case, in its third piiase, presents the issue of whether
or not a confession extracted from a_ highly suggestibte
mental defective three days after a formal char. of mur-
der had been lodged is inadmissible by reason: of the psy-*
chological -pressures used by the police in the absence of
. =
Culombe had been formally charged with murder on
Thursday, February 28. The court appointed a Special
* Public Defender, Attorney MeDonough, on Friday. On that
day, or Saturday, MeDonangh saw Culombe for the first
time. Me had never had any contact, professional or other-
wise, with Culombe before-that date (T. 675).
Qn Sunday morning, March 3, 1957, Culombe was brought
upstairs to the interrogation room in State Police Head-.
quarters. At this time, Culombe had been under urrest for
eight days. There Culombe signed ¢ confession (State's
Exhibit’ EE) in which it was ee * he killed the gas
station attendant.
From his arrest until this cohfession the petitioner was.
never, with the exception of a night in County Jail, wholly
: 31
removed from the constant observation. influence, custody |
and control of those whose persistent pressure brought
about the Sunday confession. Cf. Chambers v. F lorida, 309 —
U.S. 227, 239-240. For eight days he had been interrogated
by many experienced officers of the State Police. On the
previous morning he had been subjected to an intensive
two-hour analysis by a state-appointed doctor and: psy-
chiatrist. Within twenty-four -hours Culombe had signed
a revised and highly damaging written confession.
This confession came at a time when Culombe had been
forurally ‘charged with murder, and when the State had
appointed counsel. Attorney McDonough was not present
when this confession was elicited, nor was he notified by
the police that such a statement was to be taken.
Phere is no evidence as to whether Culombe did or did
not ask to see his attorney before signing the confession. “
Certainly, if -he had asked, and his request denied, such .
action would have made this confession inadmissible under
the concurring opinions of Spano. .
Assuming, arguendo, that Culombe did not ask for coun-
sel, the confession is still inadmissible in the form in which
it was taken. . :
Lieutenant Rome and other officers were present in the
interregation room of State Police Headquarters when this
confession was made. The system used for constructing
the confession was as follows: -Rome would ask a question;
Culonibe would answer; Rome would paraphrase tle answer
in narrative form; and then this narrative was typed, read
to'Culombe, and signed (T. 1092).
officer Fersch, the typist, testified that most of the
language and syntax contained ‘in the confession were those’
o? Lieutenant Rome (T. 920). Fersch stated that the state- -
tient was not the statement of Arthur Culombe, but that of
: ”
32
Lieutenant Rome. or. ee Officer Fersch stated that
he could have typed what Culombe had said, which was
understandable, had Lieutenant Rome not ordered hiin-to
nse Rome’s words and construction (T. 920- 922).
The State Police were well aware that the ‘subject of this
“interrogation was a mental defective (T. 1317). They knew, .
froin the expefience of eight days’ close’ questioning, that he
was (as the psychiatrist and psychologist later verified)
a highly sugge stible, easily -led individual (T. 1308).
It was in this context that a confession, formed in the
words and syntax of an experienced police officer bent on
obtaining a confession, was signed. by the illiterate peti-
tioner. A comparison of Culombe’s testimony (T.~607 ff) -
and the confession (T. 1094 ff) indicate the inarked dif- &
ference in grammar and. vocabulary.
Culombe’: s attorney, who was not present, ‘inde not
warn Culombe that statements obtained in the manner here-
in would-tend to be partisan to the prosecution. As the
esteemed Federal Judge J. J oseph mith — held
in striking down a confession :
“Statements elicited during questioning are hema
to be colored to some extent by the purpose of the ques-
tioner who inevitably leads the witness in the absence
of court control. This coloring is compounded where
the statement is not. taken down stenographically, but
‘written out as a narrative in language supplied by the _
questioner. Where state of mind of the defendant
is an issue in the case, as in determining the degree of
homicide, the wording of his account of the crime is
of vital importance.” United States ex rel. Reid v.
Richmond, Civil Action 7845, Memorandum of Deci-
sion, page 7 (Dist. Conn. 13 July, 1960).
33
Culombe’s counsel was not notified by the police that this:
’ statement was to be taken. Thus, he could not advise
Culombe of the danger to one on trial for life of adopting
the language of another in a statement signed by Culombe. |
Petitioner did not have -the mental acuity to understand
the need for the presence of counsel in such a situation. As
Dr. Ibelle, court-appointed psychologist, testified :
“All testing is consistent in indicating that this is clearly
a feebleaiinded individual - whose adjustment, both
personal and social could be at best marginal. — His
performance is that ofta middle grade moron and he
can be properly labeled moderately deféctive. In addi.
tion to being saddled with deficient mental equipment
with which he must try to cope with life’s problems,
Mr. Culombe is also possessed of the character defect
so frequently found in individuals -of low intellectual
caliber. He is enormously. suggestible. Thus, lacking
m the capacity for sufficient critical judgment his ©
manner of thinking, his pattern of living and: his way
of behaving can all be easily influenced by those’ per-
sons Closest to him” (T, 1189). |
In this case, after a formal charge of murder, the need ©
for retained counsel became more exigent, particulariy
when a mentally defective, illiterate person is pitted alone
against the skillful and oppressive measures of overzealous
‘police. ee | ; :
_dt is submitted that petitioner was deprived of his life
without due process of law because this confession, con-
structed under aggravated circumstances in the phrase-
ology of an experienced police lieutenant in the absence of
counsel, was admitted into évidence.. :
@
34
Conclusion
In conclusion, on the evidénce, facts, and law, it is re-
-spectfully prayed that the judgment of conviction and
sentence of death herein, as well as the judgment‘ of the
’ affirmance thereof, be reversed and set aside.
Respectfully submitted,
ALEXANDER A. GOLDFARB
Special Public Defender and .
Counsel for Petitioner*
Graeme K- Howanp, Jr.
Counsel for Petitioner
* Grateful ac -knowledgment is herewith made for the assistance
rendered by Thomas A. Williams, of the Yale Law School Public
Defender Committee.
A-l
APPENDIX A
Conn. Stat. §195d (1955 Supp.) [now Conn. Stat. §6-49
(1998) }. Arrest without warrant. Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs,
county detectives, constables, borough bailiffs, police offi-
cers, special protectors of fish and game and railroad and
steamboat policemen, in their respective precincts, shall |
arrest, without previous complaint and. warrant, any per- .
son for any offense in their jurisdiction, when such person
-is taken or apprehended in the act or on the speedy infor-
mation of others, and members of the state police depart- _
ment or of an organized local police department or county
detectives shall arrest, without previous complaint and war-
rant, any person who such officer has reasonable grounds.
to believe has committed or is committing a felony. Any
person so arrested shall be presented with reasonable
promptness before proper authority.
Conn. Stat. $8796 (1949) [now Conn. Stat. $54-80 (1958) }.
Public defender. The judges of the superior court shall, at
each annual. meeting in June, appoint an attorney at law,
of at least five years’ practice and residence, in each count Vv
in the state, except New Haven county, in which they sha!!
appoint one such attorney for the New Haven district and
one for the Waterbury district, to: be public defenders
thereof for the ensuing year and shall, from time to time,
make rules and regulations necessary for the conduct of
such office. Each such public defender shall act as attorney
in the defense of any person charged with crime in either
the superior court or the court of common pleas for the
county for which he has been appointed, when such person -
is without funds sufficient to employ counsel for such de-
fense. The public defender may, in accordance with the
rules and regulations adopted by the judges of the superior
court, act, within the county or district for which he has
been appointed, as attorney for the defense of any such
A-2
accused person upon any preliminary hearing before any
court in the state or before any committing magistrate.
‘Any vacancy in the office of public defender -shall be filled
by ‘the chief justice until the next annual meeting of the
.judges.of the superior court.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.