Johnson v. New Jersey
- Decided
- June 20, 1966
- Docket
- 762
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,002 timesOverruled in part (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part (not yet verified) · State v. Stever
What later courts said
- holding that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), applied retroactively only to trials commenced after the decisions were released — Davis v. United States (2011)
- holding that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) was not retroactive — Hughes v. State (2005)
- concluding that due to nonretroactivity, Miranda inapplicable, but "[p]risoners may invoke a substantive test of voluntariness'' — In Re Joshua David C. (1997)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice Warren, announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.
In this case we are called upon to determine whether Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona, ante, p. 436, should be applied retroactively. We hold that Escobedo affects only those cases in which the trial began after June 22, 1964, the date of that decision. We hold further that Miranda applies only to cases in which the trial began after the date of our decision one week ago. The convictions assailed here were obtained at trials completed long before Escobedo and Miranda were rendered, and the rulings in those cases are therefore inapplicable to the present proceeding. Petitioners have also asked us to overturn their convictions on a number of other grounds, but we find these contentions to be without merit, and consequently we affirm the decision below.
Petitioner Cassidy was taken into custody in Camden, New Jersey, at 4 a. m. on January 29, 1958, for felony murder. The police took him to detective headquarters and interrogated him in a systematic fashion for several hours. At 9 a. m. he was brought before the chief detective, two other police officers, and a court stenographer. [*722] The chief detective introduced the persons present, informed Cassidy of the possible charges against him, gave him the warning set forth in the margin, [1] concluded that he understood the warning, and obtained his consent to be questioned. Cassidy was then interrogated until 10:25 a. m. and made a partial confession to felony murder. The stenographer recorded this interrogation and read it back to Cassidy for his acknowledgment. Police officers then took him to another part of the building and apparently questioned him further. At 12:15 p. m. he was brought back to the chief detective’s office for another half hour of recorded interrogation. Under circumstances similar to those already described, Cassidy amended his confession to add vital incriminating details. For the next 11 hours he was held in a detention room and may have been subjected to further questioning. At 11:40 p. m. the police returned him to the chief detective’s office for a final brief round of recorded interrogation. Taken together, Cassidy’s three formal statements added up to a complete confession of felony murder, and they were later introduced against him at his trial for that crime.
Cite this
Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (1966)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.