![]() ![]() ![]() There was no requirement, absent a request for counsel, that an accused be advised of his right to counsel. Prior to Escobedo, the law in Texas was clear. The evidence is also clear that while he was not advised of his right to counsel, neither did he request the assistance of counsel. The evidence is clear that appellant was advised of his right to remain silent, and that he was advised of the fact that if he gave a statement, the statement would be used against him at his trial. Since appellant was tried in May of 1963, long before Escobedo, neither Escobedo nor Miranda are applicable to his case. In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court held that the Escobedo decision is available only to persons whose trial began after June 22, 1964, and that the guidelines laid down in Miranda are available only to persons whose trials had not begun as of June 13, 1966. However, since this appeal was perfected, the Escobedo ruling has become subject to the holdings in Johnson v. If Escobedo were to apply retroactively, there might be a serious problem raised by appellant's first contention. As to appellant's first contention, i.e., that his first confession was obtained without his having been advised of his right to counsel, and that this confession having been illegally obtained, all subsequent confessions are tainted with illegality, appellant relies entirely upon the holding in Escobedo v. After a full evidentiary hearing, that Court resolved the present issues against appellant, Hackathorn v. Thus, all available State Court remedies having been exhausted, a petition for habeas corpus was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case was appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and writs to the United States Supreme Court were applied for and denied. The jury heard the evidence, resolved the issue of insanity against appellant, found him guilty of murder, and assessed his penalty at death. During the trial, appellant's counsel freely admitted that Carl Junior Hackathorn shot and killed Bobbie Smith, and based his defense solely and entirely upon a plea of insanity. 1, 2 and 4 were admitted in evidence, but Confession No. He specifically waived his right to counsel and then gave the three confessions referred to. Before the last three confessions were given, appellant was advised of his right to counsel and again advised of his right to remain silent. Subsequent to giving this confession, appellant gave three additional confessions, two of which were given in Laredo, Texas, during the morning of March 6, 1963, and the last of the four confessions was given in Dallas, Texas, on March 7, 1963. ![]() He did not request, nor was he offered, the assistance of counsel. Before giving the statement or signing it as a confession, he was specifically advised of his right to remain silent. on March 6, 1963, within 45 minutes after his arrest, he gave a statement and signed it as a confession. He was apprised of the fact that he was being charged with murder and was advised that he did not have to make any statement, but that if he did, it could be used against him at his trial. After receiving medical attention for minor injuries received in the automobile accident, appellant was taken to Laredo City Hall and Police Department at about midnight on March 5, 1963. He left Dallas in an automobile, and after being involved in an automobile accident, was arrested in Laredo, Texas, on the night of March 5, 1963. On March 4, 1963, appellant shot and killed one Bobbie Smith in Dallas, Texas. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |