Taylor v. Alabama/Dissent Murphy
Mr. Justice MURPHY, dissenting.

One of the fixed principles of due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, is that no conviction in a state court is valid which is based in whole or in part upon an involuntary confession. Lee v. Mississippi, 332 U.S. 742, 745, 68 S.Ct. 300, 301. Wherever a confession is shown to be the product of mental or physical coercion rather than reasoned and voluntary choice, the conviction is void. And it is void even though the confession is in fact true and even though there is adequate evidence otherwise to sustain the conviction.

This principle reflects the common abhorrence of compelling any man, innocent or guilty, to give testimony against himself in a criminal proceeding. It is a principle which was written into the Constitution because of the belief that to torture and coerce an individual into confessing a crime, even though that individual be guilty, is to endanger the rights and liberties of all persons accused of crime. History has shown that once tyrannical methods of law enforcement are permitted as to one man such methods are invariably used as to others. Brutality knows no distinction between the innocent and the guilty. And those who suffer most from these inquisitorial processes are the friendless, the ignorant, the poor and the despised. Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 237, 238, 60 S.Ct. 472, 477, 478, 84 L.Ed. 716. To guard against this evil, therefore, the Constitution requires that a conviction be set aside whenever it appears that a confession introduced at the trial is involuntary in nature.

The problem in this case is whether the petitioner, having been found guilty of rape and sentenced to death, is now entitled to a hearing on his allegation that the confession introduced at the trial was obtained by coercive methods. The Supreme Court of Alabama refused to allow a hearing on the theory that the allegation was unreasonable. In affirming that refusal, however, this Court relies upon considerations which are either irrelevant, inconclusive or contrary to the constitutional principle just discussed: (1) The Court emphasizes that the petition does not deny the guilt of petitioner or deny any of the acts upon which his conviction was based. But whether petitioner be innocent or guilty has no bearing whatever on the reasonableness of the allegation that the confession was coerced. Even if we assume that petitioner is guilty beyond all doubt, the due process clause still invalidates his conviction if it was obtained through use of a coerced confession. The thrust of that clause is directed toward the voluntariness of the confession, not toward the innocence of the accused.

(2) Significance is given to the fact that the statements made by petitioner and introduced at the trial as his confession 'are so free in manner, detailed in content and affirmative in their nature that they carry obvious earmarks of being the truth.' Here again the Court misconceives the nature and purpose of the constitutional principle in issue. Coerced confessions are outlawed by the due process clause regardless of the truth or falsity of their content. It is just as uncivilized to brutalize an accused person into telling the truth as it is to force him to fabricate a confession. The torture and coercion are what the Constitution condemns. Hence all allegation that a confession is involuntary is not rendered unreasonable because of the apparent truthfulness of that confession.

(3) The Court refers to the absence of any evidence at the original trial of any physical or mental coercion or of any inducement or promise bearing upon the confession made by petitioner. But because he allegedly was still suffering from the coercive effects of the beatings, petitioner made no effort at the trial to prove that he had been subject to undue pressure prior to 3 a.m., July 3, 1946, which is the crucial period. Most of the witnesses at the trial admitted ignorance as to the events occurring before that time. Thus the proof at the trial is at least consistent with the allegation now made and is not such as to render the allegation unreasonable.

(4) Objection is made that the only affidavits supporting the allegation are those of petitioner himself and of three persons associated with him. I fail to see, however, how such an objection indicates the unreasonableness of the allegation. The affidavits are those of four Negroes arrested on the street at the same time and detained on a robbery charge. Their common arrest and detention do not necessarily render untrustworthy any affidavits on the part of petitioner's three companions. A statement by a friend or associate can be just as probative for present purposes as a statement by an enemy or a disinterested person. It is not our function now to weigh the effect which the relationships of the four affiants may have on the verity of their statements. Sufficient it is that the statements are reasonable and pertinent on their face. Moreover, the jail sentence now being served by one of the companions does not, standing alone, destroy the force of his affidavit unless we are to indulge in the unrealistic assumption that nothing said by a prison inmate is to be given credence. Overlooked in this respect is the fact that two of the companions are now free individuals who presumably lack what the Court feels is the taint of imprisonment. I can only conclude, therefore, that if there is anything wrong with these affidavits is does not appear in the background of the affiants.

(5) The Court observes that, except for one instance, none of the three associates claims to have seen the alleged beatings of the petitioner; all they did was a hear the brutality being inflicted. But I had never supposed that an allegation of coercion was any less reasonable because the alleged torture did not take place before the very eyes of disinterested witnesses. A momen' § reflection will demonstrate that coercion is most likely to occur in secret and to be witnessed, if at all, through the ears of other inmates. Whether there is any truth to the claimed overhearing, of course, is a matter for the trier of facts and does not affect the reasonableness of the claim itself.

(6) The alleged beatings are said to be so extreme in nature as to be evident on July 3, when photographs of the petitioner were taken. Suffice it to say that photographs can be most deceiving, especially photographs of a person like petitioner. The Supreme Court of Alabama realized this fact and placed no particular reliance upon the photographs; the dissenting judge, however, was conviced that the pictures did show numerous marks on petitioner's body. Under these circumstances, we should refrain from judgment the reasonableness of the allegation by what we think appears in deceptive photographs.

(7) The statement that Sergeant Wilkes perjured himself at the trial apparently has no foundation, as the Court points out. But this factor has no particular relevance to the reasonableness of the claim of coercion. Such an error should not prejudice petitioner's entire allegation.

(8) It is said that there is nothing other than the petition to show that petitioner concealed the alleged coercion from his attorney at the trial. This fact may be conceded, but it hardly warrants treating the claim as unreasonable. The coercion conceivably could have been so effective as to shut petitioner's lips all through the trial and to silence him even as to his own attorney. We should not close the door to proof of that possibility.

Thus I find inadequate the considerations relied upon by this Court to affirm the judgment below. Petitioner has made an allegation of the most serious nature, one that reflects gravely upon the law enforcement processes of Alabama. He claims that for four nights preceding the confession he was 'brutally beaten, kicked and bruised in an effort to obtain said confession' and put in 'great fear for his future safety.' Cf. Chambers v. Florida, supra. Three other persons are willing to testify that they heard blows struck and heard petitioner 'scream and holler many times.' A perusal of the record reveals an absence of any factor that would render this allegation completely sleeveless. Doubts may reasonably exist as to the merits of the allegation. But they are doubts which should be resolved at a full hearing. That is all that petitioner now asks. And I believe that a denial of his request to have the opportunity to prove his allegation is a denial of due process of a most flagrant nature.

We are dealing here with a matter of life and death, a matter of constitutional importance. If it were our function to speculate upon the effect petitioner's confession had on the jury's verdict, it would seem clear that the confession was of crucial importance. There was little else to sustain the verdict, the prosecutrix's identification of petitioner being somewhat weakened by the fact that she had previously made a positive and mistaken identification of another Negro. And the confession undoubtedly affected the jury's choice from among four alternative forms of the guilty verdict of the one that imposed the death sentence. Cf. Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 68 S.Ct. 880. If the confession was in fact coerced, therefore, the conviction itself was thoroughly impregnated with the coercion. But the degree of such impregnation is irrelevant under the due process clause. As we have seen, it is enough if a coerced confession was actually introduced at the trial. The conviction then becomes void under well established rules. Where there is a reasonable possibility that a conviction is void for this reason, I think that an opportunity should be afforded a condemned man to demonstrate his case. Petitioner's execution is no answer to the allegation which he has raised.

Fortunately, this Court has not yet made a final and conclusive answer o  petitioner's claim. All that has been decided here is that the Supreme Court of Alabama did not err in declining to permit him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Alabama courts. Nothing has been held which prejudices petitioner's right to proceed by way of habeas corpus in a federal district court, now that he has exhausted his state remedies. He may yet obtain the hearing which Alabama has denied him.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE join this dissent. 

Notes