People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148 (1963)

A confession obtained during a period of detention is inadmissible if taken after the defendant’s attorney has requested and been denied access to him.

Summary

Donovan was convicted of first-degree murder. His written confession was admitted into evidence at trial. The confession was obtained after police refused to allow an attorney, retained by Donovan’s family while he was in custody, to see or speak with him. At the time of the confession, Donovan was being unlawfully detained in violation of the prompt arraignment statute. The New York Court of Appeals held that the confession was inadmissible, emphasizing the importance of the right to counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination. The court reversed Donovan’s conviction, and also reversed the conviction of his co-defendant, Mencher, in the interests of justice.

Facts

James Beatty, a payroll guard, was shot and killed during a robbery. Donovan was apprehended the day after the robbery, and Mencher was apprehended the day after that. Both were questioned at a police station and admitted their guilt orally and in writing after a period of interrogation by police and a prosecutor. An attorney, retained by Donovan’s family, was denied access to Donovan by the police.

Procedural History

Donovan and Mencher were convicted of first-degree murder. They appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that Donovan’s written confession was improperly admitted into evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial for each defendant.

Issue(s)

Whether a confession obtained from a defendant during a period of detention, after his attorney requested and was denied access to him, is admissible in court.

Holding

No, because the denial of access to counsel violates the defendant’s rights under New York law, specifically the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized the importance of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel in the American justice system. The court reasoned that the right to counsel extends to pretrial proceedings, as the need for a lawyer is as great then as at any other time. The court stated that it would be “highly incongruous if our system of justice permitted the district attorney, the lawyer representing the State, to extract a confession from the accused while his own lawyer, seeking to speak with him, was kept from him by the police.”

The court rejected the argument that allowing a suspect to confer with an attorney before talking to the police would preclude effective police interrogation. The court stated that such considerations do not permit the court to ignore rights due to the accused under the law. The court condemned the continued incommunicado interrogation of an accused after he or his attorney has requested that they be allowed to confer. The court reasoned that denying such a request and subsequently obtaining a confession denies the accused the effective assistance of counsel and “contravenes the basic dictates of fairness in the conduct of criminal causes and the fundamental rights of persons charged with crime.”

The court acknowledged that there was other evidence supporting Donovan’s guilt, but stated that it could not determine whether the jury would have returned a guilty verdict if the improperly received confession had been excluded. The court noted that the legal system is concerned with the integrity of the judicial process as much as with the issue of guilt or innocence, and that constitutional and statutory safeguards must be applied in all cases.