shea
louisiana
argued
november
decided
february
petitioner
arrested
armed
robbery
charges
louisiana
taken
police
station
questioning
detectives
upon
read
miranda
rights
said
wish
make
statement
saw
lawyer
interview
terminated
next
day
petitioner
communicated
lawyer
one
detectives
without
inquiring
whether
petitioner
spoken
attorney
without
indication
petitioner
willing
interrogated
asked
willing
talk
case
miranda
rights
read
petitioner
orally
confessed
committed
robberies
petitioner
objections
confession
admitted
evidence
trial
convicted
meantime
subsequent
petitioner
trial
convictions
appeal
louisiana
pending
ruled
edwards
arizona
criminal
defendant
rights
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
violated
use
confession
obtained
interrogation
without
counsel
present
requested
attorney
acknowledging
presence
edwards
violation
louisiana
went
hold
edwards
applied
petitioner
case
held
edwards
ruling
applies
cases
pending
direct
appeal
time
edwards
decided
pp
reversed
remanded
blackmun
delivered
opinion
brennan
marshall
powell
stevens
joined
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
rehnquist
joined
post
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
frances
baker
jack
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioner
paul
carmouche
argued
cause
respondent
briefs
john
broadwell
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
edwards
arizona
ruled
criminal
defendant
rights
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
violated
use
confession
obtained
interrogation
without
counsel
present
requested
attorney
case
presents
issue
whether
ruling
applicable
case
pending
direct
appeal
state
time
edwards
decided
dispute
facts
petitioner
kevin
michael
shea
charged
louisiana
two
counts
armed
robbery
arrested
july
taken
police
station
shreveport
turned
detectives
smith
snell
questioning
miranda
rights
see
miranda
arizona
read
signed
standard
miranda
card
said
however
wish
make
statement
saw
lawyer
interview
thereupon
terminated
following
afternoon
july
petitioner
communication
lawyer
detective
snell
returned
informed
petitioner
transferred
city
jail
parish
jail
without
inquiring
petitioner
whether
spoken
attorney
whether
indigent
without
indication
petitioner
willing
interrogated
snell
asked
wanted
talk
case
miranda
rights
read
petitioner
signed
miranda
card
orally
confessed
committed
two
robberies
charges
petitioner
came
trial
due
course
state
district
caddo
parish
point
two
counts
severed
prior
trial
jury
first
count
petitioner
formally
moved
suppress
confession
july
app
trial
took
place
prosecution
offered
confession
evidence
defense
objected
objection
overruled
confession
admitted
petitioner
convicted
filed
like
suppression
motion
respect
second
charge
denied
withdrew
original
plea
entered
plea
guilty
reservation
state
law
see
state
crosby
la
right
appeal
denial
motion
suppress
app
appeal
louisiana
petitioner
raised
issue
trial
error
violation
miranda
admitting
confession
opinion
louisiana
tribunal
cited
decision
edwards
come
meantime
subsequent
petitioner
trial
convictions
louisiana
acknowledged
presence
edwards
violation
stated
present
case
undisputed
police
initiate
inquiry
july
clearly
informed
defendant
previous
evening
make
statements
without
counsel
consequently
violation
additional
standard
governing
police
interrogation
suspect
imposed
edwards
arizona
error
occurred
decision
edwards
rendered
convinced
pronounce
decision
retroactive
hold
case
importance
issue
conflicting
decisions
elsewhere
granted
certiorari
ii
edwards
case
center
present
controversy
involved
facts
startlingly
similar
present
case
police
officers
informed
edwards
miranda
rights
questioned
said
wanted
attorney
point
questioning
ceased
next
day
however
officers
visited
edwards
stated
wanted
talk
informed
miranda
rights
obtained
oral
confession
positive
clear
ruling
lthough
held
initially
advised
miranda
rights
accused
may
validly
waive
rights
respond
interrogation
strongly
indicated
additional
safeguards
necessary
accused
asks
counsel
hold
accused
invoked
right
counsel
present
custodial
interrogation
valid
waiver
right
established
showing
responded
custodial
interrogation
even
advised
rights
hold
accused
edwards
expressed
desire
deal
police
counsel
subject
interrogation
authorities
counsel
made
available
unless
accused
initiates
communication
exchanges
conversations
police
omitted
legal
principle
thus
established
uncontested
question
us
case
whether
ruling
applies
retroactively
respect
petitioner
convictions
issue
raised
case
pending
undecided
direct
appeal
state
system
time
edwards
decided
iii
two
recent
cases
bear
importantly
upon
issue
first
johnson
case
held
decision
concerning
fourth
amendment
rights
applied
retroactively
convictions
yet
final
time
decision
rendered
except
situations
clearly
controlled
existing
retroactivity
precedents
contrary
specifically
held
payton
new
york
applied
retroactively
johnson
case
johnson
found
persuasive
justice
harlan
earlier
reasoning
application
new
rule
law
cases
pending
direct
review
necessary
order
avoid
position
selecting
one
several
cases
use
announce
new
rule
letting
similarly
situated
persons
passed
unaffected
unprotected
new
rule
see
desist
dissenting
opinion
mackey
separate
opinion
noted
minimum
new
rules
constitutional
law
must
applied
cases
still
subject
direct
review
time
new
decision
handed
johnson
quoting
dissent
desist
johnson
extent
necessary
decide
today
case
embrace
justice
harlan
views
desist
mackey
thus
determined
unless
rule
clearly
break
past
prior
precedents
mandate
nonretroactivity
new
fourth
amendment
rule
applied
cases
pending
direct
review
rule
adopted
considering
retroactivity
payton
concluded
question
resolved
fairly
applying
payton
ruling
cases
pending
direct
review
payton
decided
provide
principle
decisionmaking
consonant
original
understanding
linkletter
walker
tehan
ex
rel
shott
comport
judicial
responsibility
justice
litigant
merits
case
goal
treating
similarly
situated
defendants
similarly
second
case
solem
stumes
clearly
involved
obvious
edwards
violation
took
place
seven
years
edwards
stumes
conviction
finally
affirmed
south
dakota
sought
federal
habeas
relief
petition
writ
however
denied
federal
district
stumes
appeal
pending
appeals
edwards
decided
appeals
ruled
edwards
police
acted
unconstitutionally
divided
vote
reversed
holding
edwards
applied
retroactively
stumes
situation
justice
powell
concurred
judgment
impose
upon
state
costs
accrue
retroactive
application
new
rule
constitutional
law
habeas
corpus
costs
view
generally
far
outweigh
benefits
application
primary
difference
johnson
one
hand
stumes
difference
pending
undecided
direct
review
judgment
conviction
federal
collateral
attack
upon
state
conviction
become
final
must
acknowledge
course
johnson
directly
control
disposition
present
case
johnson
specifically
declined
address
implications
holding
case
constitutional
area
fourth
amendment
case
fourth
amendment
issue
raised
collateral
attack
conclude
however
reason
reach
case
result
different
one
reached
johnson
see
mack
oklahoma
nothing
fourth
amendment
rule
suggests
context
given
greater
retroactive
effect
fifth
amendment
rule
indeed
fifth
amendment
violation
may
likely
affect
process
fourth
amendment
violation
justice
harlan
reasoning
principled
decisionmaking
fairness
similarly
situated
petitioners
require
application
new
rule
cases
pending
direct
review
applicable
equal
force
situation
presently
us
hold
analysis
johnson
relevant
petitioner
fifth
amendment
claim
edwards
entitled
benefit
ruling
case
iv
arguments
made
support
judgment
persuasive
first
said
drawing
distinction
case
pending
direct
review
case
collateral
attack
produces
inequities
injustices
different
johnson
purported
cure
argument
litigant
whose
edwards
claim
considered
presented
collateral
review
unfairly
treated
litigant
whose
claim
bypassed
edwards
law
distinction
however
properly
rests
considerations
finality
judicial
process
one
litigant
already
taken
case
primary
system
latter
curtain
finality
drawn
somewhere
closing
must
come
justice
powell
stressed
opinion
concurring
judgment
solem
stumes
said
specifically
particularly
difficult
cases
justify
imposing
upon
state
costs
collateral
review
insubstantial
next
said
application
edwards
cases
pending
direct
review
result
nullification
many
convictions
relegate
prosecutors
difficult
position
retry
cases
concerning
events
took
place
years
ago
think
concern
overstated
given
empirical
evidence
support
louisiana
evidence
unavailable
brief
respondent
note
furthermore
several
courts
applied
edwards
cases
pending
direct
review
without
expressing
concern
lapse
time
retroactivity
without
creating
apparent
administrative
difficulty
see
supra
case
unduly
slow
winding
way
state
judicial
system
much
state
fault
defendant
serve
penalize
defendant
addition
said
every
case
edwards
alone
excepted
reliance
existing
law
justifies
nonapplication
edwards
pointed
difference
petitioner
edwards
petitioner
present
case
edwards
principle
applied
retroactively
way
dispense
equal
justice
edwards
shea
rule
confined
edwards
principle
prospective
application
unavailable
even
edwards
finally
said
edwards
rule
prophylactic
character
one
designed
enhance
accuracy
criminal
jurisprudence
argument
course
taken
michigan
payne
retroactivity
north
carolina
pearce
consideration
argument
feel
fully
answered
decision
johnson
said
opinion
judgment
louisiana
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
see
state
brown
state
taylor
app
courts
without
addressing
retroactivity
issue
applied
edwards
cases
pending
direct
appeal
decision
announced
see
state
platt
app
people
cerezo
state
brezee
haw
state
carty
people
paintman
cert
denied
petitioner
case
pending
certiorari
edwards
announced
surely
remanded
cases
reconsideration
light
edwards
see
blackney
montana
white
finkbeiner
federal
habeas
leuschner
maryland
monroe
idaho
wantland
maryland
james
illinois
actions
cases
indicated
conclusion
part
edwards
inapplicable
cases
pending
direct
review
six
cases
questioning
course
predated
edwards
monroe
blakney
remand
edwards
applied
without
discussion
retroactivity
see
state
monroe
idaho
state
blakney
mont
conclusive
interest
note
least
two
occasions
addition
solem
stumes
discussed
infra
text
already
considered
edwards
retroactive
setting
application
custodial
inquiries
took
place
edwards
decided
see
wyrick
fields
inquiry
oregon
bradshaw
inquiry
bradshaw
like
instant
case
direct
review
considered
decided
edwards
issue
cases
comment
expressed
concern
retroactivity
examination
appendices
briefs
two
cases
reveals
retroactivity
issue
raised
underlying
presence
however
sufficiently
disturbing
cause
mention
sua
sponte
solem
stumes
observed
minimum
nonretroactivity
means
decision
applied
collateral
review
final
convictions
purposes
case
need
decide
edwards
johnson
also
declined
address
situations
clearly
controlled
existing
retroactivity
precedents
new
rule
law
clear
break
past
considered
nonretroactive
almost
automatically
whatever
merits
different
retroactivity
rule
cases
kind
may
need
concerned
question
solem
stumes
recognized
edwards
sort
clear
break
automatically
nonretroactive
justice
white
chief
justice
justice
rehnquist
justice
join
dissenting
last
term
solem
stumes
held
rule
announced
edwards
arizona
applied
retroactively
collateral
attacks
criminal
convictions
concluded
prophylactic
purpose
edwards
rule
justifiable
failure
police
prosecutors
foresee
decision
edwards
substantial
disruption
criminal
justice
system
retroactive
application
edwards
entail
indicated
wisdom
holding
edwards
nonretroactive
today
however
majority
concludes
notwithstanding
substantial
reasons
restricting
application
edwards
cases
involving
interrogations
postdate
opinion
edwards
edwards
rule
must
applied
retroactively
cases
process
direct
appeal
yet
completed
edwards
decided
holding
majority
apparently
adopts
rule
long
advocated
shifting
minority
johnson
namely
rule
new
constitutional
decision
except
perhaps
one
constitutes
clear
break
past
must
applied
cases
pending
direct
appeal
time
handed
two
concerns
purportedly
underlie
majority
decision
first
retroactivity
somehow
essential
attribute
judicial
decisionmaking
announces
new
rule
declines
give
retroactive
effect
abandoned
judicial
role
assumed
function
legislature
use
term
justice
harlan
employed
describing
problem
desist
harlan
dissenting
second
completely
unrelated
concern
fairness
business
majority
reasons
treat
like
cases
alike
accordingly
unfair
one
litigant
receive
benefit
new
decision
another
identically
situated
denied
benefit
majority
concerns
doubt
laudable
escape
conclusion
rule
spawned
makes
sense
means
avoiding
come
known
problem
rule
announced
majority
wholly
inadequate
true
legislature
super
otherwise
think
concerns
supposed
usurpation
legislative
authority
generally
go
substance
decisions
whether
retroactive
surely
believe
overstepped
bounds
legitimate
authority
announcing
new
rule
constitutional
law
find
little
solace
decision
holding
new
rule
retroactive
decision
sense
illegitimate
making
retroactive
useless
gesture
fool
one
hand
decision
salutary
one
one
whose
purposes
retroactive
application
retroactivity
may
worse
useless
imposing
costs
criminal
justice
system
likely
uncompensated
perceptible
gains
judicial
legitimacy
futility
latest
attempt
use
retroactivity
doctrine
avoid
difficulty
highlighted
majority
unwillingness
commit
logic
position
even
maintains
retroactivity
essential
judicial
function
today
majority
like
majority
johnson
supra
continues
hold
possibility
really
new
rule
one
marks
clear
break
past
may
applied
retroactively
even
cases
pending
direct
review
time
new
decision
handed
see
ante
johnson
supra
course
majority
truly
concerned
problem
clear
break
decisions
trouble
indeed
one
might
expect
disturbed
problem
majority
purports
swear
decisions
altogether
reserve
power
issue
decline
apply
retroactively
leaving
open
possibility
exception
clear
break
decisions
majority
demonstrates
emptiness
proposed
solution
problem
claim
majority
rule
serves
interest
fairness
equally
hollow
although
majority
finds
intolerable
apply
new
rule
one
case
direct
appeal
another
perfectly
willing
tolerate
disparate
treatment
defendants
seeking
direct
review
convictions
prisoners
attacking
convictions
collateral
proceedings
stated
see
johnson
supra
white
dissenting
williams
plurality
opinion
seems
attempt
distinguish
direct
collateral
challenges
purposes
retroactivity
misguided
majority
rule
otherwise
identically
situated
defendants
may
subject
different
constitutional
rules
depending
long
ago
conduct
occurred
quickly
cases
proceed
criminal
justice
system
disparity
different
kind
occurs
benefit
new
constitutional
rule
retroactively
afforded
defendant
whose
case
announced
others
new
approach
equalizes
nothing
except
numbers
defendants
within
disparately
treated
classes
majority
recognizes
distinction
direct
review
habeas
problematic
justifies
differential
treatment
appealing
need
draw
curtain
finality
ante
unfortunate
enough
exhausted
last
direct
appeal
time
edwards
decided
yet
majority
offers
reasons
conclusion
finality
decisive
factor
conviction
overturned
direct
appeal
basis
edwards
violation
remedy
offered
defendant
new
trial
inculpatory
statements
obtained
violation
edwards
excluded
clear
majority
finds
burdensome
remedy
acceptable
imposed
state
direct
review
result
collateral
attack
disruption
attendant
upon
remedy
vary
depending
whether
imposed
direct
review
habeas
accordingly
remedy
must
granted
defendants
direct
appeal
strong
reason
deny
prisoners
attacking
convictions
collaterally
conversely
serves
worthwhile
purpose
grant
remedy
defendant
whose
conviction
final
edwards
hard
see
remedy
available
direct
review
underlying
flaw
majority
opinion
failure
articulate
premises
retroactivity
doctrine
announces
actually
rests
recognizing
decision
marking
clear
break
past
may
retroactive
holding
concern
finality
trumps
considerations
fairness
might
otherwise
dictate
retroactivity
collateral
proceedings
majority
implicitly
recognizes
fact
issue
decisions
involving
retroactivity
treating
like
cases
alike
short
majority
recognizes
reasons
certain
decisions
retroactive
rules
majority
announces
fail
reflect
thoughtful
inquiry
reasons
might
contrast
principles
retroactivity
set
forth
linkletter
walker
recently
applied
solem
stumes
provide
rational
framework
thinking
question
whether
retroactive
application
particular
decision
makes
sense
whether
benefits
retroactivity
outweigh
costs
already
determined
relevant
considerations
set
forth
linkletter
purpose
new
rule
extent
law
enforcement
officials
justifiable
reliance
prior
rule
effects
criminal
justice
system
retroactivity
dictate
nonretroactive
application
rule
edwards
join
majority
conclusion
rule
applied
retroactively
cases
pending
direct
review
time
decision
edwards
importantly
concur
approach
retroactivity
adopted
today
majority
approach
precedents
regarding
nonretroactivity
decisions
marking
clear
break
past
remain
undisturbed
merely
adds
confusing
unjustifiable
addendum
retroactivity
jurisprudence
respectfully
dissent
distinction
direct
review
collateral
attack
may
bear
relationship
recency
crime
thus
extent
difficulties
presented
new
trial
may
severe
underlying
offense
remote
time
may
new
trials
tend
somewhat
burdensome
habeas
cases
cases
involving
reversals
direct
appeal
however
relationship
means
direct
speed
cases
progress
criminal
justice
system
may
vary
widely
thus
truly
concerned
treating
like
cases
alike
accomplish
purpose
far
precisely
applying
new
constitutional
rules
conduct
appropriately
recent
vintage
assume
however
one
argue
explicit
rule
example
notion
new
trial
significantly
less
burdensome
remedy
imposed
direct
review
ordered
habeas
also
called
serious
question
facts
particular
case
remedy
grants
petitioner
new
trial
held
almost
six
years
commission
offense
charged
doubt
many
prisoners
whose
convictions
final
time
edwards
decided
given
new
trial
conveniently
petitioner
course
less
burdensome
aggregate
apply
edwards
cases
pending
edwards
decided
give
full
retroactive
effect
token
less
burdensome
apply
edwards
retroactively
cases
involving
defendants
whose
last
names
begin
letter
make
decision
fully
retroactive
majority
obviously
countenance
latter
course
failure
identify
truly
relevant
distinction
cases
direct
appeal
cases
raising
collateral
challenges
makes
rule
announces
equally
indefensible
today
decision
foreshadowed
new
applicable
direct
review
collateral
proceedings
decision
makes
law
somewhat
new
apply
cases
direct
review
generally
basis
collateral
relief
really
new
decisions
breaking
past
however
likely
apply
neither
collateral
proceedings
cases
direct
review
decision
announced
majority
thus
recognizes
purposes
retroactivity
doctrine
three
categories
decisions
new
newish
brand
new
hoped
plenary
review
better
justice
rehnquist
dissenting
willing
join
result
reached
case
majority
willing
adopt
aspects
approach
retroactivity
propounded
justice
harlan
concurrence
mackey
approach
new
constitutional
rules
prescribed
conduct
criminal
prosecutions
apply
retroactively
cases
direct
appeal
time
new
rule
announced
narrow
exceptions
apply
collateral
proceedings
challenging
convictions
become
final
new
rule
announced
attempt
summarize
justifications
approach
thoughtfully
articulated
justice
harlan
apparently
willing
adopt
entirety
justice
harlan
distinction
direct
appeals
collateral
attacks
join
justice
white
dissent
agreeing
little
logic
analysis
rejection
sound
reasons
given
solem
stumes
making
edwards
arizona
nonretroactive
results
reached
case
solem
happen
justice
harlan
approach
analysis
solem
approach
justice
powell
concurring
judgment
solem
followed
mackey
concurrence
rationale
justice
harlan
approach
requires
apply
cases
cases
majority
favors
result
yields
appear
prepared
take
course