◆ SpookStack

Asheraft et al. vs. State of Tennessee. li Then he became desperate and accused the Negro. Certainly from this point the State was justified in holding and questioning him as a witness, for he claimed to know the killer. That accusa- tion backfired and only turned up a witness against him. He had run out of expedients and inventions; he knew he had lost the battle of wits. After all honesty seemed to be the best, even if the last, policy. He confessed in detail. At hat + At what point in all this investigation dees the Court hold that the Constitution commands these officers to send Ashcraft on his Way and give up the murder as insoluble? If the state is denied the right to apply any pressure to him which is ‘‘inherently ecoer- cive’’ it could hardly deprive him of his freedom at all. I, too, dislike to think of any man, under the disadvantages and indig.. nities of detention being questioned about his personal life for thirty-six hours or for one hour. In fact, there is much in our whole system of penology that seems archaic and vindictive and badly managed. Every person in the community, no matter how inconvenient or embarrassing, no matter what retaliation it ex- poses him to, may be called upon to take the witness stand and tell all he knows about a crime—except the person who knows most about it. Efforts of prosecutors to compensate for this han- dicap by violent or brutal treatment or threats we condemn as passionately and sincerely as other members of the Court. But we are not ready to say that the pressure to disclose crime, in- volved in decent detention and lengthy examination, although we admit them to be ‘‘inherently coercive,’’ are denied to a State by the Constitution, where they are not proved to have passed the individual’s ability to resist and to admit, deny, or refuse to answer. TH. The Court either gives no weight to the findings of the Ten- nessee courts or it regards their inquiry as to the effect on the individuals involved as immaterial. We think it was a material inquiry and that respect is due to their conclusion. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, writing in this case, stated the law of that State by which it reviewed and affirmed the action of the trial court. It said, ‘‘When confessions are offered as evi- dence, their competency becomes a preliminary question to be de- termined by the court, This imposes upon the presiding judge the duty of deciding fhe fact whether the party making the con-