Miller v. Fenton Court Documents

    ST]PREME COTIRT OF THE UNIIED STAIES

SYIlehr

UILLER u. FEL'ITON, SIIPERINTTNDENI, BAIIWAY
SIATE PRISON, Er AL.

CEBTIoBARI To lEE I,NITED sfATEs @t,BT oF APPEAIS FoB
TEE STTTE CIBCT'IT

No.tl-ffI86.ArgucdOctober16,lS6-DccidrdDccenbcrS'1S5

Petitioaer, rfter r s&Ehut€ iDterrogsdon et the NcrJeney Strtr Police
- -B;&;-f..."a 

to r murdcr. 
-lte 

New Jcney triet-lurt ni-ected

hir uo6on to nrppreac the confeauioo, rnd the lury found HT. guitlY of

6"'t^d.g."^,t.o.freNelrJcrreySupericConrrtAppelhte.Divi.
o" -"-"r"o hdng r! . E tt4r of rr-Il thet the coufession ses the r.}
arlt of computsion 

"ira 
U* ''rs 

iEpennilEibtc nnder tbe Fourteenth

e..rA.*i,s due pmcess gurrentee. fre NeiJerrey Strpreme Court

;"."d;fudiog, kto, e*'',ining tbe "totslity of sll the arrouding
.ir****,"-tblt Ue interogation was pnoperand tlret t'he resulting

;"f*dd being vol,ntsry, hed bcen properly rd,iJt€djDto evidenee.

i;dfi"*r th". Jooght a writ of talees coryIE in Fd€rrl Diltrict Coutt,

rbLh di.ri"."d tbJpetition without ur evidentiery hearing. -Ite Court

;-App""t s6,-cd; ho6iDg t5.r the ply$erineu of e confession is s

+;[i icsue' Eithin the .".niDg of 23 U. S' C' !2254(d), which pr.*

videl thrt stst€-clurt 6ndings oI Iz{,!, with certrin exceptious, "rhall
U" g-*i"a b be cor:rect" in r federzt hsbeeE corpru_pnoceeding, rud

G[ *-rai"gty federzl review of the New Jeney Supreme Court's

deterrinrtioa tirt petitioner'r confession was volnntery ses limited to

whether th3t eo|rrt.pplid the prcper legat t€st ead whether its fsstual

conclusiotrs rerc nriported by-thi record- UDder this ctendard, the

c*rt oreppotr eonuuaea thrt the District court'r denid of the bbeas

corpus petition wls ProPer-

Hcld: \\e voluoEriness of e confesgion ir not rn issue of hct entitled to
-- 

th,e lu,t;l<d) presumption but is r legal question neriting independent

concidemtion in e feaerat hsb€ss corpus proceeding' h' 5-14
(e) there ir no support in this Conrf,s decisioru for the suggestiorr tlrat

tle errtment of ! Zfoqdl in 1966 altered this Court's prior eonfession
I



t\

E UILLEB u. FENTON

Sylllbtt!

ces€s holding tbet the ultiEst€ icEue of holunEriness" ir s legal que+

ffi-;qtitoi,[g Mependent federal deteminrtion. More importantly,

| 225(d)'s hiltory trnderrrines rny argument thet congreos intended

tbet the ultirgte question of the admissiuitity of s conf- essioa be-tre8t€d

., 
" 

"a"t*f issue; rithin the meaning of thet provision' h' il'
O) In rddition to considerstio, ofiton d*isis urd congresionel in'

t"il th" *t r* of the tolrmterinesE" inquiry.itseU.loat.ttryry.13 6"
lordog in thic c$e. Moreover, the pncticd considerstioE tlrct hsve

bd td Crrrt t" flnd other icsu€! within tf" *p:-o!-F" t2254(d) pre

_rpd; are rbsent ia the confession contcxt. u,like such i!Eu." .l
6itp.t'd"lity of riuror or co,D.tltrry to 

'1snd 
Ehl' rssersment's of

;dtfifty end-dendmr rre mt 
-cnrirt 

to thc pruper resolution of the

,H."!. irsue of vonraterinesa. Aodthe crificrl evcntr sunogndingt'he

t"ld"g.f;;J*rion elmat bvriebly oceur, Dot in opeu court, but in I
rccreleoa Eor\e Goercive cavircrurcol h't-13'

741 F. 2d !ffi, reverrod rnd renended'

oCorxo&J.,deliveredt.heopinionofthccourt"iDwtichBuBGEB,
C.J., uA BBEIN N, WETI, ilirrsanrt, BLrcruN, Powplu end

Sis."lG, JJ., joined- Brmrqusr, J., 0led r disreuting opinion



SI]PBEME COI,]RT OF IgE IIT-IIIED STATES

No.8{-6786

FRAI'IK M. MILLER, Jn'' PIITIIONER o' PETER J'

FENroN, E[li;hnrirtqroEm' RAEwaY
,STATE 

PBISON, ET AL

oN WBIT Ol'CEBTIOBABT TO ry sf,ATES @uBr oF

ETPSAIS-TON TEE EIBD CIBSI,IT

fOecculer 3' l'S5l

Jusrtcp O'Colrxon delivered the opinion of the Court'

Under 28 U. S' C' ! nil(d\ state-court ffndings of fact

'sball Ue p"esumea-L-G;#tt" in a federal habeas cor-

lffixmt#$;**n:lffift]f'ffi;
presumPtion- I

on the morning of August q-19?3, a shnger lpPPached

the rr:rzl N"r, .li"tlfiffi 
-;iiz*"'"'ou peuorau Margolin

and told her thaii l{.tf;; *r" rooie at the foot of her drive'

way. She set #;;;;t" investigate and ueyel rehuned'

Later that day,;";;fiI'tt"d bod-y *ts forurd in a nearby

stream.

t In pertinent put, 28 U' S' C' t 2254(0 provides:

"Ia any procding *u*,"a in a Federal co,rt by an application for a

rrrit of habeas corPus ui "'irs"rri "*t"ay 
pt'rst:a"t to the judgment of a

State eourt, 
" 
a"t"t-i''itioi aftnr a Uearinq ol the merits of a factual issue'

mede by a SEte *,*.i*ril,"ii:-*i"ald"n. .. . shell be prest[ned to

be correct, nnlese

"(E) . . . the Fedenl court ' ' ' concludes-tlret such factual detcruination is

#.";G; bY the recod as a whole'"



t4-6?s6JPINION

2 UILLER tl' FENTON

Ite vietim,s brothers were able to provide a description of

the stranger/s car [i .f"U'it'g' -BPd 
on this information'

,fE;ilithe NeJersey Sto:te Police tentatively identified

;.d;;;;; .na, r"to tnaf euening, lound him at his place of

;illt-]-"nt. 
'Petilon." otponl"a to the officers' prelimi-

;fr ilq,ri"i;s and-agreed to ret,ra.to the police-barraclcs for

Gi", q""rdonin;' Appryrynately two honrs liater, Detec-

F. Ctrilf"s Boyci tea'fetitioner t9 an intenogatign room

and inforored him ;}hit l|r-nda rights. Petitioner inquired

.bdnil;pe of his privilege -!-remain 
silent and then exe-

etrted a writtcn *"i"";, tue iauaity of whidr is not at issue.
--a 

6g minutc rois irri"r-gation session ensued. During

tue co,r.e of the 
-*ft*i"*,-Det.stiue 

Boyce told petitioner

t*-Mr. l[r"g.li" ua:*, died. _ 
That statement, which

B"y* k".* to-U" r-t",r., suppo:ted-another officer's earlier'

-iEr.,v f.lr", *gg.iti9;''t'hat .he victi. was still dive

and could identify n i-"'tt "ttt' App' 16-1?; Becord 109 and

306.--D;t".dre Boyce slso told petitioner that he had been

iJ."UnJ 
"t 

tU. llri"solb houe &dier in tbe dav' In fact'
-Ms: 

Maryolin'. U-tl&t had only provideda Se-r-reraldescriP

tion of the strangeis car and iotniog' Finelly' Detective
g"y;iDdi*t"d dr"t urooa steins bad been fourd on petition-

er,sfrontstoop.N"*.uevidencewasintroducedattrid,
*J *rpondent does uot aow contend t}at it ever in fact

existed.- rtoguout t}e intenriew, Detective Boyce presented

himself .. tl-p"ttr*ic to petitionerJs plight' seveml

o".."io*, Ue stitea that he did not consider PelitigneLto be a

criminalUecausetheperpetratorofthedeedhada'tnental
;;LT;;;d needed'medical hetp rather than punishment.

,G;""r--br"tit"ttv, pe'tionir tully confessed to the

rfre follorring exctraage ia representstive of tlre tone of tlre
intcnogation
"8"y." fraok" look, you rent help, don't yor' Frank?'

"Uru"- Yes, uh huh, yes, but ye! ['m' fm not goins to dmit to som]

thing that, thet I wasn't involved ii''



I'JTE6JPINION

UILLEB o FENI'ON 3

crine. After doing so, he lapsed into what Detestive Boyce

a..oit a as e "st8ie oi shock ' Record 84-85. Repeated

oort" to -,ls" him finom his sttrpor ailed, and the police

almno"ea ur ambulsnce to bznsport him to the hospitd.

The trial court rejected petitionerrs motion to suppress the

confession, and the jury fo-ud petitioner g,rrtJy of mnrder in

the ffrst 6egree. TLe Superior Coqrt Appellale Division re-

,.r..d, Oo&"S as a Esttei of law that tbe confession was the

resutt bf "iot"or" .nd mind bending peychological compul-

Cor; -a thenefore was imperoissible under the Fourteenth

"Boyce 
..we don't vrnt you to, rll I rrnt yorl to do ir t'lk to Be' tllrt's dL

frioit.ff."g rboqt ed;tiffng to rnything Frrsll I wrnt you P tdk to

;. -i..rt i" to tell me whet you thry! ^I 
rsat ],ou to rell me how you

think sbdlt tlir, rfirt you rhirrL sbfit this?

flilhr: rybrt I think sbdrt it?

"Boyce: T€eh"'
{iller: 'I }hinL whocvcr did it ralty ncd! bcb"
5Bovee ,And tbet's Etrt I rhinlr ud thrfr riet I ho$'. They don't,

td;;r't r""d prmirhmeut, right? Ule yon reid, t'hey nced help"

trlter: 8i&L'

"Boyce: Now, don't ydr think if,s better if soneone toosr tlrst he or she

t"t',, *"tA poUfe--to come forward with it rnd sey, loolq [ve, 
-Ive, 

f'Ye

aoo" tto" ,,t,, r, respongible for t.his, hrt I rant to be helped' I eouldn,t

urp ry."u, t brd no conuot of myadf rnd if fm exarnined properly you'll

0nd out thef,s the crsa'

"Okey. tLlicen fraDl, E[ t pronise to, 
-you 

kaow, do dl I can wit] the

6i.triii.rO everything, cltd we 8et tbe Prop€r help for you ' ' ' will
yotr trlk to ue rbout iL
{iller 't cu't tslk to you ebout somet}ing Pm not ' ' .'
"Boyce: 

.Alright, [!t€n Frenk, drighthonest. I know, I loow whaf,s gu

irg;; irdd. fru, rrenk I *.mt to letp you, you krow, betrreen w right

-l*. . . . youte got to telk to oe ebout iL ltis is tlre oaly way well be

ote to sortit ottt.- I Ee8n, Jrou loos, list & I rant to help you, because

il; in ny nind, you e,re- not resporuible. You are not rcsponsible,

FreDlL fnDb whrt's tbe netter?

"!filler: 'I feel bsd.'" APP. Yl-Z,.



84-5?86JPINION.

{ UILLER "' 
FENTON

Amen,lment,s guarantee of Due Process. App. 53. over

i# G."nts,-tue supreme co,rt of New Jersey reve'sed

"*i* ?6 N. J.8g2,gb8 A- 2d 218 (19?8)' After-exaurining

ffi{.dh;ry ;i .ll ti""r-.unding circumstances," including

oetitioner,s eaucatiorra level, age, and Awareness of his

fr#"d;;grrt* tu" C.rrt rorina-*rat the intermgation "did

;;;;;;6L; b"*dt," and tlret the resulting confession'

;id;;fft""y, ura u*n property admitted into evidence.

Id,.,A 4uz-405,388 a- %l, ttry2A'--F.ution"" tu* *oght'. writ of habeas colplls in tJle

uoit"a st"t"s Distric-court for the District of New Jersey'

Th"t;,rrt di..d*d the application without an evideatiary

ilrfi. .t Atial r.""t ,1try.9offi of Appeals-for the

rniru Eir=rit .tr -*i ?41 F. 2d 1456 (19&l). Relying on

ffit pr.*aent,-'the Tqrt h.ld ryt the voluntariness of a

confession is a "factusl issue" within ttre meaning of, I
ii. S. C. $ut4(d): Accordingly, federal review of the New

;-o."V Supreme 6oufs detennination that petitioner's con-

i;t"r was volurtary was "limited to whetber the state court

;ppu.a tu" p"op"i te"g"r test, and.whether tits] factusl conclu-

;;;-. . . f*.i,f *p-p"rted on the recotd as a whole'' 741

F. 2d, st L462. Uii.t this standard, the gurf concluded'

the District Cooris denial of the petition for habeas relief

was proper.
E;G. the courts of Appeals have reached differing con-

d;i""" on whetber state-cotrrt voluntariness determinations

o. 
"otiu.a 

to the $2254(d) presrrmption of corectness, and

Uo*" of the issue's impoitance 
-to 

ttre administration of

*irrl".l jrxtice, we granted tt$otoi' 47f U' S' 
-(f985). Compare AmnUcy v' McKaskle' 72 F' 2d 187' 188

tlte corrt of Appeals relied on ro earlien decision of tbgt coun holding

thet the \olmgrineeslof r weivcr ol Mimtfu rights was^entitled to the

Wfril presrrmption Pesrwn t' Ctybl 7D F' ztl g25.'. S0 (CA'3

19E4).Thepresentcss€prres€ntsmoccasionforutoaddret!t.hegrrestion
whether federal r|au"""'*,Irt must aceord the statr,rtory pr=sumption of

coFegEre$tost8treurtfindingsconcerningthevalidityofawaiver.



HTS6JPINION

UILLEB u. FENION 5

(cAs 1984) "(mohurtariness of a confession is a mixed quelr

ion of hw atta-fut"), with Aleoonder v' Smith,582 F' 2d

2t2,2L7 (CA2), cert. denied,4i!9 u. s. 990 (1yI8) (state eourt

voluntariness det€lulinstion entitled 6 gn'ilId) presump

tion). 
le 

now neverse and remand.

u
this court has long held that certain interrogation- t€ch-

oiqd, either in isohfton or as applied to the,nique 

'1*',c-t"i"tiis of a partiolsr suspect, are so ofiensive to a civilized

c!'ste6 of jofo." tbat they rnust be conderuned under the

6il Pt *it Ct*." of the Fourteenth Amendmeut' Bmut
;.-Mt rl"rt?pt, gl V. S. 278 (1S6), vas ghe wellspring of
this notion,'now deeply elrbedded in our criminal lsw.

Faced with ststemenls- extrected by beatings and other

iorrr oi physical anq psychological torhlre, the Court.held
that conf"sslo* procured-by means tevoltingto t!9 sedse of

Snstice" could noi be used to secune a conviction- Id., 9;t2516.
'O, o,-r.*us subsequent occasions the Court ha" get aside

convictions secured ihrough the admission of an impnoperly

obtained confession- See, e. g., Mincay v' Arbona, 87
U. S. SS5 (lyr8); Haynes v. Wq.stingtotl, 3?B U' S-'. 503

tfg63l; Asttrzvrfi v. Tmrussee, W U. S. t43 (1944); Clnm'
i ;. Ftoriio, S0g U. S. U7, A$-m (1940). Although

these deeisiors aamea the legal inquiry in a variety of differ-

.ot *"yr, usually t}rough thi "convenient shorthand" of ask-

ing whlther tfie confession was "involuntary," Blonkbttttt v.

liobmo,36l U. S. 199, 2ff7 (1960), the Court's analysis has

consistently been animeted by the view that'ours is an accu-

satorial and uot an inquisitorial syst€m," Ragen v.- Rich-

mond,365 U. S. 434, elt (tgef), urd that, accordingly, tac-

tics for eliciting inorlpatory statements must fall within the

broad constitufional boundaries imposed by the Fogrteenth

Anendment,s guarantee of fundamental fairaess. Indeed,

even after uolding that the Fifth Anendment privilege
a8.ainst compulsory-self incrimination applies in t,lle context of



8{-5?S6JPINION

6 UILLER u' FENION

custodial intelrogatioru, Mitondav Arizmw' 3&l U' S' 4i!6'

;?8 a196d -a it Uittdng on the states, Mollay t' Hogan'878

ii. s. il;'tigoll, th; co,r,t has continued to measure confes-

;;.i.ititt tue requirements of Dtre hocess' See' e' g''-ii;;;;Arir*o,-r,v*, 
* aM; Beechpr v' Alabo'mo' 89

U. S. 3S, 38 (1960 @o ariam)'- witb&t.x.epuoii the co,rt,s eonfession c28es bold that

tneuttinatei'.o"or"volrrntariness"iSategal-grrestion
r"qr*it g ittaependent federal detemination' See' c' 9"
ii,u*i'". iiW'rrst ,r, {19:!', 8t 515-516; Aslvrofi v'

i;iirri, gu u. b., 
"t 

tnz-tns. As reeently as 19?8, thg

6"rtt *"fift-ta tUrt it was'bot bound btr I state<ourt vol-

;t"r'h& ftraing;a reiterzted its historic "duff le rnrkg

an independent .uJ*tiot of the record'" Mitueg v' Ari'
,r"":;W,at 39& ltst duty, * Minccy males orplicit' is

;;i lil6d io i*t rr..s in whicii the ctaim is that the police

;;dr.t ;as "inherently coerncive'" Aslwofi u.' Tmnnssee'

ttifr, * :fA. It applies equally when the interrogation

ffi5,fq*, *""" iropiri"r ontv uecatrse, in the-pa$sular cir-

;rrdil;s of the'..;, the confession is gnlikely to have

Arizona,ww,at40l.Becauset.heultimateissueinboth
&.go"ii. ,ir o"". is the same-whether the state has ob

t"io& tU. confession in a manner that comports with Due

il"$-the decisions leave no doubt that our independent

;lfiti", to decide the constitutional question is identical.---*i;*.y, 
Ashcrofi,urd many of the early decisions applying

the independentieteraination rule in confession cirses came

to the iourt on direct eppeal from state-cor.rrt judgments.

Th" *1., however, is no less firoly egtablished in cases com-

il;;" federal iystem 9n applicarion for a writ of habeas

;G. Doruis ,. itonn Comlinn, Ss4 U' S' 737 (1966)' re-

*fJthe issue with trnnistakable darity' th9ry'the State

t"a 
"a.itted 

into evidence a confession elicited from an im-

poverished, mentally deficienJ snsqeC who had been beld in-

iommqnicado for f6 days with barely adequate nourishment'



8{-6?86{PINION

UIIJ.ER a FENN)N 7

E:rpressly relying on the direct'appeal qases' the Court

.td.d uirequivocaUy. that sta!9purt deteroinations con-

*iosthe irltinate'{uestion of the voluntariness of a confes-

,ion-"ft not binding in a federal bsbe8s corPus proc''eeding.

Id., st74Lrt42.-- 
b"',,i" was decided four months before A U' S' C'

L?f/ru<al was signed into law. Act of Nov' 2, 1966, Pub' L'
ig-iii, 80 St8t.-1lOE. Respoudent contends that, whatever

;i;l;; G; til gry pnor P 1e66, tbe enactnent of

tti54(0 in thst year fundamentally 8lt€red the nature of fed-

;*l h;6"* reoiew of stat€ volmtariness findings' that
;gg.td; finds no nrpport in Eis-Court's decisions' See'

;:f.:Brr,fi-, i. ttotiri,', s)4 U. S.. 4?8, 480 (1969) (ffnding

coifession volunta4r 3ffpv meking "ur indepe-ndeut g!9dy gf

tU. .oUt" record'i Frustct v. eupp, S94 U' S- ?:11' 7:I9

Ogegl (exanining "totaify of the g' to sasess

iariiriUiUry of finfessiotr). More importantly, the history

of gZSn<ai rurdermines any aryumeut t'hat Congress in-

t"na.a *rai tle ultipat€ qdestion of the admissibility of a
confession b€ trested a "factual issue" within the meaning of

tfi-;;"iri"r The 1966 amendment waa an almost ver$a-

tin co,aincauon of the stsndads delineated in Totttwend, v.

Soirr,872V. S. 293 (1963), for determining whel a district
;t 

"t 
must hold an evideutiary hearing before acting on a ha-

u"r" p"uuo". slhen a hearing is not obligatory, Toumsenl'

U"ta, tU" federal court "ordinarily should . . . accept the facts

as forurd,'in the state proc.eeding. Id., at 318. congress el-

evated that exhortation into a mendatory presnnrption of cor-

recfiiess. But there is absolutely no indication that it in-

tcnded to alter Tounuends understanding that the fultimate

corutitutional question" of the admissibility of a eonfession

was 8 "mixed arestiotnl of fact and lac' subject to plenary

federal review. Id., st 309, and n 6.

In short, an unbroken line of cases, eoming to this court
both on direct appeal and on review of applications-to lower

federal courts fLr a writ of habeas corpr6, forecloses the



'r4-6?86{PINION

E UILLER u FENTON

court of Appeal,s conclusion that the 'toltrntariness" of a

.o;.s.ioo ir"tit something less than independent f{td
**ia.""tior" To be suri, subsidiary factual questions'

*a''whet.heradnrgbrsttrepropertiesofabnrt}s€rum,
il; ilf, oi t h.oEr in fict- thl .n9uq engaged |1 tr"
intimidation tactics dteged by the defendant' I'ovot'Lee v.

Drllri;r, 410 u. s. 6fr, e$-e95 (rfiB) Qct-rytn)rue
;6tled t"'the !22t14(d) presunption And the federal he-

b."t-*ttt, tUoota, of couse, givl great weight to$: toPid-
.*a.oo.t*ionsofecoeq.lsl-stat€judidsry.Culombev.
C**ttl-rt, 36? U. S. aig, 6OS (1961) (opjnion of Frznk-

ftnt";, t. But, as we now reaffrm, the ultimatc question

,l"iilo, *aer'the totality of th" circunstsnces, the dral-

i*S.d ;rrforion was oUtained ia s manner compatiblevith

tdt qrl*ments of the Constihrtion is a Estt€r for inde'

penden-t federal determination'

UI

Ibe Court of Appeals recognized that treting th9- voltrn-

t*irril of 
" 

.rf.'rrion as at istue of fict was difficult to

[* ;th "Aftv yea6 of caselad in this Cotgt. ?41 F. 2d'

"iie6Z. 
lt UeULvea, however, that this substantid body of

*ot-r"y precedent was not eontrolling ry lgt'! gl-oy.'o*
,"""rrt aou.io* addressing the seope of the $2254(d) pre-

or-ftion of **t,** *.W"ii*ig4"'Yifi" 4'69 U' S'

-, - 
(1985) (triat court's determination that a prosPec-

tive jtrror in a capital case-\f,as, propoly exduded-for cause

entitied to presumption); Pottort y' Yottnt,467 U' S. 

-Og84t (i.partiality'of an individual juror); Btnlsn v. Spain,

iol U. S. ita (198s) (per atriom) (etrect of' a potte- commu'

oiotio, on impartiatity of individud 5uror); MogW v'

Fu,lfotd, 46211. S. lff (1983) (per curiarn) (competency to
-rt""a 

t"i"U; Mo,'TJtEtt v. Imberge4 459 U' S' 4n, 431-497

irgA0 
-ta"ii"ri*tion that defendant received and under-

i""d suffcient notice of eharges agahst him to rcnder gtulty

piea volqntary). We ackrowledge t;at the Cogrt has not



8{-6?S6JPINION

UILLEB tr FENION I

chsrted an entirely clear course in this area we rpject'

ho*"r.r, the court of appeals' conclusion that these case'

;p"dd holdings tacitly bverturned the longstanding.rule
ti"i tU. volun6riness of a confession is a matter for inde-

pendent federal determination.
: h tt" $2254(d) coutext, as elsewhere, the appropriste

,"thodologr for distingubhing questions of fact from ques-

U.^ of t il has been,lo say-thl least, el,sive' See-B-ose

CA. v. Consumerc A"ir* 6f U"AqA Stotes, hu', 41615 U. S'

nSStfmnl; Boumgo;r'hocrv. Unitofi,StnleE,WV' S' 
-666, 

6?1

O-gnl. A f"* piittciples, however, are-by now-well estab
lished. For exampte, tnat an is$re involves an inquiry into

state of Eind iB not at eU ireonsist€ut with treating it as a

qtresti* of fact. See, a. g., Moggio v' Fulfotd,- W'
iq,o1y elearly, an issue does not lose its &c6o8l character

;;Jt becsu; its resolution is dispositive of the ultimgte

**titoUor.t Erestion * Doltt, B@,d of E&tmtiott v.

Crr,rl*", lri U. S. 526, 534 (lytg) (ffndingof int€nt to dis"

oiri*t" i.Ui*t to "clearly ermn.ous'stsnderd of review).

But beyond tL"." elemental propositions, negative i3 fotn'
tU" Coi"t has yet to arrive it "a rute or principlg thqt o11

*.*ingty aisfrngtrisU a factrrd finding ftogr- a-le8al con-

clnsion.i' Puttman Standart v- Sutitrl,456 U' S' 2?:1, 288

(1982). :-' 
Perhaps much of the diffiorlty in this area stems from the

practical truth that the decision to label an issue a "question
^of 

law," a "question of fact," or a "mixed questign of law and

frct" is somlti,es as much a matter of allocation as it is of

eDalysis. See Monaghan, Constihrtional Fact Review, S
coluro- L. Bev. W,87 (1985). At least in those instances

in which Congress bas not spoken and in which the issue falls

somewhere b"t*."n a pristine legal standard and a simple

historical fact, the facUtaw distinction at times has hrrned on

a detemrination that, as a matter of the sound administration

ofjnstice, one judicial actor is better positioned than another

to deeiae tne issue in question. where, for exanrple, as with



84-5?S6JPINION

l0 UILLER u FEMION

proof of actu8l malice in First-Amendment libel cases, the

ieter"rrt legBl priDciple can be given meaning only t;rough its

;;dd;to'the i*u.6* circumstances of a case, the

a.jlllt hr. been retuctant to give tbe trier of fact's conclusions

pr"sr.fti"e force and, in so doit'g, strip a. fedgTl appeilate

;; oi itt primary function as an 
-expositor 

of l"y' See

Aii Crr". i. C*irmcrs Union of Unilnd Stntes' Inn'' 4ffi

U. i., "t' . $imilu'ly, sa rare o-ccasions in years past the

c".,'tt,"':*tin.aindependentfederalorappellatereview
*",.-"ofcomperrs"tingfor.perteivedshortcomingsof
[. t"d of fact bi *y oiui'" or some ot'her factor' ' ' '"
Id,-., rt618 (REBI,iursr, J., dissenting)' See, e-' g-'-' Hoyrus

; i*tkgt-r, 373 U. S., et 516; Wafrs v' Indiono' &18

U. S. 49,{2(1949) (opinion of Frankfirrter, J)' Cf' iVoris v'

Alobomo, 2p4V. S. 687 (1935).
- 

In contrast, ot.her cousiderations often suggest t.he appro.

poi"t"n"tt of resolving clory eu9$ons concerning the status

of an issue as one of-"}rv/ or 'frct" in fivor of extending

a.r.*n." to the trial court. when, for exaurple,_ the issue

involves tbe credibility of witnesses and therefore turns

f""g"fy oo an evalnetion of demeanor, there are compelling

ffi;".ilir" jqstifrcations for leaving the prccess of applying

law to fad d the trial cogrt aud according its deterrrinatioru

p*tr-pUve weight - Potton--v' Ywnt, W' a1d \ain'-r-lgtt'v. 'Witt, iup*, are illustmtive' There the Court

stressed that the state trial judge is iu a position to assess

irr-" ti,* that is frr superior to-that of federaliudges review-

irg ; application for a writ of habeas corpN. principally

foi tlat reason, the decisions held, juror bias merits _treat-
ment as a "factual issue" within t}e meaning of $254(d) not-

*itu"arraing the intimate conneetion between sudr deter-

minetions .na th. constihrtional guamntee of an impartial

jury.- 
tro" several rlessolut we think that it would be inappropri-

ate to abandon the court's longstanding position that the ulti-



E{-6?S6JPINION

UILLEB u. FENTON 11

E8t€questionoft.headmissibilityofaconfessionmerits
G"t-itt rs a legal inquiry requiring plenary federal re-

view. TYe notp at-the outs"i tba[we do not write on a clean

rt"t". {Iery weighty consideratioru wtderlie the principle

tlrt *,r"tt 
-shoull 

not lightly overnrle pqt 
-d"ryjons''M^g", v. Stntes Moriru-Linns, Inn',398 U' S' 375' 403

iig?oi. ltus, even asguming thst contemporary consider-

iUori nrpporiea respondent's constnrction of the stahrte,

oorry a half century of unwavering pretrdent weighsleavily
8g:ainst -y *ffion tlrat we ry* di..""d ttre settled rule

irr-Uri. ar.i. [-o"eor"r, as previo,sly noted, Congress pat-

t"-.a $22tt(d) sfter fwirwenA v' Soin, 872 U' S' 293

iig6Sl, . o"" tlrt.t a"ty assgmed that tbe voluntariness of a

confession was an issue for independent federal detennina-

tion ltus, not only ue stolz it cisis @ncerns compnlling'

Uoi, -til" ia Moniwy v- I'onberyet, 469 U' S' 422 (1983)'

R;rr^ ". S-,in,454 U. S. 114 (1983), or 8ny of our ot'her

o.o"t gnsi<al;r"s, in the confession context we have the

bene0t of some congressional guidance in resolving whether

tl. aLpot a issge lds oritsiae of the scope of the. g2il{d)

. po"tGpUoo" Although the histgry of t'hat nrovSlon. is not' 
IttU"ofits ambiguities-, it is certainly clear enoughlo tip the

oto in frvor oit""atiog tbe volnntariness of a confession as

beyond the reach of $2Ziia(d).
io ,aAUon to c'onsiderations of stnrv ilzci,sis and congres-

sional intent, tbe nature of the inquiry itself len& support to

the conclusion that toluntariness" is a legal question merit'
ing independent consideration in a federal habees corpus pro-

ddi"g. Although sometimes franed as an issue of fsycho-
fogiofi."t," Culonlfu v. Cm,necticttt, %7 U' S', at 603, the

diipositive question of the volrurtariness of a confession has

A*"yr had ; nniquely legal dimension It is telling that in

condssion cases coming ftom tbe States, this Cogrt haq con-

sistently looked to the Due Process Clause of the Fotrrteenth

Anendment to test admissibility. See, c' g', Min'cey v' Ari'
z(nur,4:l? U. S., at 402- Ibe loetrs of the right is significant



84.5?S6JPINION

t2 UILLEB tr' FENTON

because it refleets the court's consistently held view that the

,d-t"ribi5ty of a confession turns as much on whether the

t".hoiqo". ior e:rtracding th€ statements, as applied to^tluis

suspect, are compatible-with a system that presunre-s.iruro-

cence and assurei ttrat a conviction will not be secured by in-

ari.it""i"r means as on whether the defendant's will was in

i"t otoUorn.. See, a. g., fullegos v' Col'omdn' 370 U' S'

49, 61 (1962) (suggesting thst "a compound of two itlfluences,,

*it"t that some eonfessiong be condemnd); Culorn'be v'

Cil*A;rnt 86Z U. S., at 605 (describing vol,ntariness as en
;;ehrtian"). lltis hybrid quality of the voluntariness in-

ffil ;;suning, ," it do"i, a "complex-of vdues," Blaok'

6ii'". Atofunw,361 U. S., at 2ff1, itself militetes ag,itrst

t"."tiog the question as one of simple historical fact.
- -p.rtgfitio 

on" side whether tol,ntariness" is anatytica[V

.or" 
"f.ii 

to a fact or a legal conclusion, the przctical consid-

.*uo* that have led us to ana other issues within the scope

oitU" gnilQ)prestrmption are absent in the confession eon-

;J. fit=t, t-tit 
" 

tl" i-pattidity of a given juror, IW
iiorrr*, ndz U. S., at 

-, 
or competency to stand trid,

Mrggt" i. Fut1ord, 462V. S., 4 1l?, assessments of credibil-

ity iira demeanor are not crtrcial to the_proper rrcsolution of

the ultimate issue of \oluntariness." of course, subsidiary

qtrestions, zuch as the lenglh and circumstances of the in-

iir-S"U*, the defendant's prior e:rperience with the legal

pr.o""-.r, and familiarity with the Miranda warnings, often

fo"i".'trre rcsolution 6f conflicting testimony of police and

defendant. fire law is therefore clear that state'court find-

ingS on such mettet.s are conclusive on tle habeas eourt if

.The volunErircss nrbric brs been variously condemned as '\rseless,"

Panlson, Ttre Fourteenth Arnendment rnd the Third Degree, 6 stan- L.

nev. {1i, li[ (19!l);.perplexing,'Grano, Volturtariness, Free Will, and

G Ir* Lf Cotf"t"io*', 65 Vr- i. Rer. 869, 863 (19?9); urd "legal'double
,"&,;; i g.i*t, Controlgver lllegal Enforcement of the Criminal [.aw:

na" or the supreme court 48 (1955). see generally, Y. Kamisar, Police

Interogation and Confessions l-25 (1980)'



E4.5?86.4PINION

UILLER u, FENTON

fairly supported in the record and if the other eirurmstances

*oi"ot'.a in $2254(d) are inapplicabte' But once such un-

aerryins factual issues bave been resolved, and the moment

.orlr ior deteruining whether, under the totality of the eir-

or-.t"rr."s, the confelsion was obtained in a manner consist-

*t *itl the constihrtion, the statecourt judge is not in an

appr.ecirably better position tlran the federal habeas court to

meke that detemination-
S"dd, the allocution of a Srilty plez, Monlwll v, I*

W;:;rP*, the a{ludication.gf competency to.stan{ F"l'
Urgg- ". 

fu\rrA, irrp*, a1q !h. determination of juror

ifiiwrl"r*tihtuwitt,469 U. S. 

- 
(1985), talce place in

;d;* ooi futt reeord. In marked contrast, the critical

"i."t sunorurding the taking of a confession dmost invari-'

ably occgr in a se;?t and inhereutly more coercive envi'on'
,"ir Mirurdo v. Arizotto,. 984 U. S', 8t 458' lbese eir-

cumstances, standing alone, cannot be dispositive of the

q,r"rd; wfether a ["tiq1ar iEyrp fulls wit]in the reach of
g'ZSqal Eo*eoer] together with the ineviteble end under-

standebie relustauce-to &clude an otherwise reliable adnis-
.i"" of guilt, lwkscn v. Denno, S?8 U' S' 368, 381 (1964),

tt 
"v 

et"i"te the risk tSat eroneoqs resolution of the volun-

t tio".. question Eight inadvertently ftrrstrat"- F" protec-

tion of tU" f"a"A riitrt. S* Hayncs v. Wasltitt4totl, 873

U. S-, at 516; WodtlTmos, Sf6 U. S. 54? (1942)' We reit-
erate o,rr confidence that state judges, no less than their fed-

eral counterparts, will properly discharge tfeir dltty to pro-

teet the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. We

oote oofy that in ttre confession context, independent federal

review ir" tr.aiUonally ptayed an important paratlel role in
protecting the rights at stake when the prtseottion secutts a

conviction throufh the defendant's own admissions'

w
After defending at length its conclusion t}at the voluntari-

ness of a confession was entitled to the $221r4(d) presumP



8{-5?E6JPINION

14 UILLER 0' FE}{TON

tion, and after carefully analFing the petitione/s confession

*Ji" that standard, ihe Court of Appeds suggested in a
uri.r footnote thst it kould reach the same result" even

*.* it to glve the issue plenary consideration. 741 F. 2rl, at

L467, n 2i. Tnesmuch as it is not clear ftom t'his language

tt"t tU. coqrt did in fact independently evduate the admissi-

tiltry of the confession, and because-, in any e]ent, we think
tl"t'O. case warants fuller anal)tsis under the app:opriate

rt"rra.ra, \re reverse the decision below and remand for fur-

ther proceedings consisteut with this opinion'

It is a odffin.



t

SUPRENM COURf, OF lEE T]NIIED STAIES

No. t{-6786

FBANK D[. MILLER, JB., PETIIIONER U PETER J.

rgl.lroN, strrEnrNtgl[DEM, BAI{VfAY
S:TATE PBISION, Ef, AL

oNWBIToFcEEnoBABIToIEEUNTTtsDSTATES@UBror'
TPPEAUI FOB TEE TEIBD CIBCTIIT

tDcccobaS' l$51

Jusrrcr Rpg'rQursr, dissenting.

lte couft decides thst the vohuterines of e eonfession is

*i- isnre of &ct pres,med to be correct uder 28 U. S. C.

gi;1g.ai.--f tUr*'it iE dif6sult to sensibly distinguish the

i"t"ririi"tion tbst a partiorlar confession was voluntary

Ao- tU" deteminetioui which we have held to be entitled to

; p*.,-ption of correctness under $2254(d)' Se Suwtcr
i.'Moto (Sr^rrn I), 4Ag U. S. 539 (1981); Sunnn v'-Mata

is"*rr-itl, 455 u.'s. 591 (1982) @et atriam); Manln'll v'
'drrgn, lbg u. s. 4?2, tl31-43? (18), Moggio u' Fulfotd,
46a U. S. 111 (198i1) @cr cwiotrt), Rlat,lrcrt v' Spoin, &l
U. S. 114 (1983) (pq iu*m); Pannt v' Youtt;t,46'/ g' S'

=:-irs8ai 
(ilip op., at 1114); zfiWoitumisht-g-Witt,

459 ir. S. 

-, 
' (i980 (slip op., at 13-17). While the

a;,rt *tio principally on rtorz dzcisi^g for the rcsult it
t r.Uo today, clnost aU Oe eaces upon which it ryli1 eu-

t ril direct-review bY this Cotut of gtatc coqrt decisions

-tber thaD federal hsi,e8E review. But even if that difier-

;; ;; deemed innaterial, it seems to me thzt ste'a fuci'
rt, ir, uot a sufrcient rEasln for exduding a finding as to the

,of*t"rio... of a confession frou the presumption embodied

ir $,254(d). All of the recent cases cited evirce a Eore rE8-

roo.a approach to this issue than the interesting bltt soEe-

*l"t riitical exegesis in cases such as Columbe v. Comucti'

i

:

:

t



(/'"/'**



a

8t-5?86-DISSENT

2 UILLER a FENION

ant,ffitu.S.568,603-606(1961)(opinionofFrarr}drrter,
J.).- I .f"o disagree with the Court's decision to remand this

case to the CJrut of Appeals for a second nur at tlle voluntari-

o"* Gr"". I think tire majoriW of thst co,rt made it dear

turt it had evaluated the aamissiuitity of the confession under

th; ;*".t standard as defined by thi" Court today' It is

*fort,*t" tlrat petitionerrs cballinge to his eonviction for a

,ora.r which odrned 12 years agO should be the subject of

"aaiUo*t 
and unnecessary litigation and delay'

I respeetfirllY dissent.