 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Watts v. Indiana" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Watts v. Indiana | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued April 25, 1949 Decided June 27, 1949 | |
| Full case name | Watts v. Indiana |
| Citations | 338 U.S. 49 (more)69 S. Ct. 1347; 93 L. Ed. 1801; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2080 |
| Holding | |
| The use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Frankfurter, joined by Murphy, Rutledge |
| Concurrence | Black |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concur/dissent | Jackson |
| Dissent | Vinson, Reed, Burton |
Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
In his concurrence/dissent, Justice Robert Jackson famously opined, "To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to solution of the crime because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client—guilty or innocent—and that, in such a capacity, he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem. Under this conception of criminal procedure, any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."
In this case, a defendant was subjected to rigorous interrogation methods, including being forced to sleep on the floor, resulting in a confession to having committed murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession was involuntary and reversed his conviction.
Thurgood Marshall represented the defendant, Robert A. Watts, in Watts v. Indiana.
See also
- Due Process Clause
- Other related police interrogation cases:
References
- Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949).
- "Robert A. WATTS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF INDIANA. L. D. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Aaron TURNER, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School.
External links
- Text of Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949) is available from: Justia Library of Congress
This article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |