◆ SpookStack

8 Ashevafi et al. vs. 8 Tennessee, Asheraft and discussed the crime with him until about 7:00 on Sunday morning. Beeker and Battle then returned and inter- viewed him intermittently until about noon, when Ezzeli returned and remained until about 5:00. Becker then returned, and about 11:00 o’clock Sunday night Asheraft expressed a desire to talk with Ezzell, Ezzell was sent for and Ashcraft told him he wanted to tell him the truth. He said, ‘“‘Mr. Ezzell, a Negro killed my wife.’’ Ezzeli asked the Negro’s name, and Ashcraft said, ‘‘Tom Ware.”? Up to this time Ware had not been suspected, nor had pais name been mentioned. Ashcraft explained that he did not tell the officers before because ‘‘I was scared; the negro said he would burn my house down if I told the law.’’ Thereupon Becker, Battle, Ezzell, and Mr with the Sheriff's office, took Ashcraft in a car and found Ware. When questioned at the jail, Ware turned to Ashcraft and said in substance that he had told Ashcraft when this thing happened that he did not intend to take the entire blame. The officers there- upon turned their attention to Ware. He promptly admitted the killing and said Asheraft hired him to do it. Waldauer, the court reporter, was called to take down this confession, and completed his transcript at about 5:40 am. Hi. read it to Ware and told him he did net have to sien it unless he so chose. Ware made his mark upon ‘t and swore to it before Waldauer as a Notary Public. A copy was given to Asheraft, and he then admitted that he had hired Ware to kill his wife. He was given breakfast and then in response to questions made a statement which was taken down by the court reporter, Waldauer, It was transcribed, but Ashcraft declined to sign it, saying that he wanted his lawyer tad dayroe, connected to see it before he signed it. No effort was made to compel him to sign the confession. However, two business men of Memphis™ ME" Castle, vice"presttent of a bank, and Mr. Pidgeon, president of the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, were called in. Both testi- fied that Asheraft in their presence asserted that the transcript was correct but that he declined to sign it. The officers also called tbr McQuiston to the jai] to make a physical examination of both Asheraft and Ware. He had practiced medicine in Memphis for twenty-eight years and both Mr. and Mrs. Asheraft had been his patients for something like five years. In the presence of this friendly doctor Asheraft might have complained of his treatment and avowed his innozence. The doctor testified, however, that Ash- _, em oa f ennesséd, ca Ashcraft et al. vs, St craft said he had been treated alt right, that he made no com- plaint about his eyes, and that they were not bloodshot. The doctor made a physical examination, and saya Ashcraft appeared normal. He further testified as to Ashcraft, ‘‘ Well, sir, he said he had not been able to get along with his wife for some time ; that her health had been bad; that he had offered her a property settle- ment and that she might go her way and he his way; and he also stated that he offered this colored man, Ware, a sum of money to make away with his wife.’’! The doctor says that that statement was entirely voluntary. No matter what pressure had been put on _ Asheraft before, the courts below could reasonably believe that he made this statement voluntarily to a man of whom he had no fear and who knew his family relations. Asheraft’s story of torture could only be accepted by disbeliev- ing such eredible and unimpeached contradiction. Asheraft testi- fied that he was refused food, was not allowed to go to the lavatory, and was denied even a drink of water. Other testimony is that on Saturday night he was brought a sandwich and coffee about midnight ; that he drank the coffee but refused the sandwich; that on Sunday morning he was given a breakfast and was fed again about noon a plate lunch consisting of meat and vegetables and coffee. Both Waldauer, the Reporter, and Dr. MeQuiston testi- \ fied that they saw breakfast served to Ashcraft the next morning, | before the statement taken down by Waldauer. Asheraft claims he was threatened and that a cigarette was slapped out of his mouth. This is ‘all denied, This Court rejects the testimony of the officers and disinterested witnesses in this ease that the confession was voluntary not be- cause it lacked probative value in itself nor because the witnesses were self-contradictory or were impeached. On the contrary, it is impugned only on grounds such as that such disputes ‘‘are an inescapable consequence of secret inquisitorial practices.’? We infer from this that since a prisoner’s unsupported word often conflicts with that of the officers, the officer's testimony for con- | stitutional purposes is always prima facie false. We know that [police standards often leave much to be desired, but we are not 1The officers had been aa to any motive for Asheraft to murder his wife (who was his third, two former ones having been separated from him by divorce). He disclosed in his confession to them that her sickness had re- sulted in a degree of irritability which had made them incompatible and resulted in hia sexual frustration,