◆ SpookStack

6 Asheraft et al. ys. State of Tennessee. admit that from that time on their barrage of questions was con- stantly directed at him on the assumption that he was the mur- derer. Together with other persons whom they brought in on Monday morning to witness the culmination of the thirty-six hour ordeal the officers declare that at that time Ashcraft was ‘‘cool’’, ealm’’, ‘‘collected’’, ‘‘normal’’; that his vision was unimpaired and his eyes not bloodshot; and that he showed no outward signs of being tired or sleepy. As to whether Asheraft actually confessed there is a similar eonflict of testimony. Asheraft maintains that although the off- cers incessantly attempted by various tactics of intimidation to entrap him inte a confession, not once did he admit knowledge concerning or participation im the crime. And he specifically denies the officers’ statements that he accused Ware of the crime, insisting that in response to their questions he merely gave them the name of Ware as one of several men who occasionally had ridden with him to work, The officers’ version of what happened, however, is that about 11 P.M. on Sunday night, after twenty-eight hours’ constant questioning, Ashcraft made a statement that Ware had overpowered him at his home and abducted the deceased, and was probably the killer. About midnight the officers found Ware and teok him into custody, and, according to their testimony, Ware made a self-incriminating statement as of early Monday morning, and at 5:40 A.M. signed by mark a written confession ip which appeared the statement that Ashcraft had hired him to commit the murder. This alleged confession of Ware was read to Ash- eraft about six o’elock Monday morning, whereupon Ashcraft is said substantially to have admitted its truth in a detailed state ment taken down by a reporter. About 9:30 Monday morning a transcript of Ashcraft’s purported statement was read to him. The State’s position is that he affirmed its truth but refused to aign the transeript, saying that he first wanted to consult his lawyer. As to this latter 9:30 ? episode t the officers’ » they beng is in ‘to “witness the end “of the ‘examination, In reaching our conclusion as to the validity of Ashcraft's cou- fession we do not resolve any of the disputed questions of fact relating to the details of what transpired within the confession chamber of the jail or whether Ashcraft actually did confess,” 7 The use in evidence of a defendant’s cverced confession cannot be justified on the ground that the defendant has denied he ever gave the confession. White v. Texas, 310 U. &. 530, 531-532, * ‘ Ashcrafi et at. vs, Siaie of Tennessee. 7 Such disputes, we may say, are an imescapable consequence of secret inquisitorial practices. And always evidence concerning the inner details of seeret inquisitions® is weighted against an ac- cused, particularly where, as here, he is charged with a brutal erime, or where, as in many other cases, his supposed offense bears relation to an unpopular economic, politica), or religious cause. Our conclusion is that if Ashcraft made a confession it was not | voluntary but compelled. We reach this conclusion from facts which are not in dispute at all, Asheraft, a citizen of excellent reputation, was taken into custody by police officers. Ten days’ examination of the Asherafts’ maid, and of several others, in jail where they were held, had revealed nothing whatever against Asheraft. Ingniries among his neighbors and business associates likewise had failed to unearth one single tangible clue pointing to his guilt. For thirty-six hours after Asheraft’s seizure during which period he was held incommunicado, without sleep or rest, relays of officers, experienced investigators, and highly trained 8 State and federal courts, textbook writers, legal commentators, and gov- ernmental commissions consiatently have applied the name of ‘‘inquisition’’ to prolonged examination of suspects conducted as was the examination of Aaheraft. See, e. g., casea cited in IV Wickeraham Report, supra, and alao pp. 44, 47, 48, and passim; Pound (Cuthbert W.), Inquisitorial Confessions, 1 Cornell L. Q. 7; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. 8. 227, 237; Bram v. United States, 168 T. &, 832, 544; Brown ¢. Walker, 161 U. 8. 591, 596; Counselman v. Hiteheock, 142 UL 8. 547, 573; ef. Cooper wv. Btate, 86 Ala. 610, 611. In a case where no physical violence wag inflicted or threatened, the Supreme Court of Virginia expressly approved the atatement of the trial judge that the manner and methods used in obtaining the confession read ‘‘like a chapter from the history of the inquisition of the Middle Ages.’? Enoch v. Commonwealth, 141 Wa. 411, 423; and see Cross v, State, 142 Tenn, 510, 514. The analogy, of course, was in the fact that old inquisition practices included questioning suspects in secret places, away from frienda and counsel, with notaries waiting to take down ‘‘confessiona’’, and with arrangements to have the suspect later affirm the truth of his confession in the presence of witnesses who took no part in the inquisition. See Encyclopedia Rritaunica, Fourteenth Ed., ‘‘Inquisition’’; Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, Sixth Ed., Part First, Chap. VII, The Tngulaition ‘VILE Wigmore on Evidence, Third "Ea, p. 307. “(In the more serious offenses the party suspected is arrested, he is placed on his inquisition before the chief of police, and a statement is obtained. . . Where the office of the district attorney is in political harmony with the police system, the district attorney ia generally invited to be present as an in- quisitor.’? 2 Wharton on Criminal Evidence, Eleventh Ed., pp. 1021-1022; and see Notes 5 and 6, supra. An admirable summary of the generally expressed judicial attitude toward these practices is set forth in the Report of The Committee on Lawless En- forcement of Law, | Amer. Journ. ef Police Beience, supra, p. 587: ‘/ Hold- ing incommunicado is objectionable becsuse arbitrary—at the mere will and unregulated pleasure. of a police officer, * * * The use of the third degree is obnoxious because it is secret; because the prigoner is wholly unrepresented ; because there is present no neutral, impartial authority to determine questions between the police and the prisoner; because there is uo limit to the range of the inquisition, nor to the pressure that may be put upon the prisoner’?