◆ SpookStack

6 Asheraft et al. vs. State of Tennessee. than is permissible, what about 24f or 121 or 67 or 1f All are “inherently coercive.’” Of course questions of law like this often turn on matters of degree. But are not the states entitled to imow, if this Court is able to state, what the considerations are which make any particular dezree decisive? How else may state courts apply our tests? The importance of defining these new constitutional standards of admissibility of confessions is emphasized by the decision to return the companion case of Ware to the Supreme Court of Tennessee for reconsideration ‘‘in the light of the ruling as to Ashcraft.’? Exeept for Ware’s own testimony, all of the evidence is that when he confronted Asheraft in custody Ware confessed | immediately, voluntarily, and almost spontaneously. But he had‘ been arrested, taken from bed into custody, and detained and questioned. Does the doctrine of inherent coerciveness condemn the Ware confession? Should the Tennessee court decide whether Ware, obviously a much weaker character than Ashcraft, was actually coerced into confessing? It already has decided that question and this Court does not hold the fact determined wrongly. Ware’s case is properly in this Court. Why should not this Court decide Ware’s case on the merits and thus test and expound its novel ruling as applied to a different set of circumstances? No one can regard the rule of exclusion dependent on the. state of the individual’s will as an easy one to apply. It leads to con- troversy, speculation, and variations in application. To eliminate these evils by eliminating all confessions made after interrogation while in custody is a drastie alternative, but it is the logical con- sequence of today’s ruling, as its application to the facts of Ash- eraft’s case will show. I. Apart from Asheraft’s uncorroborated testimony, which the Tennessee courts refused to believe, there is much evidence in this record from persons whom they did believe and were jus- tified in believing. This evidence shows that despite the ‘inherent coerciveness’’ of the circumstances of his examination, the con- fession when made was deliberate, free, and voluntary in the sense in which that term is ysed in criminal law. This Court could not, im our opinion, hold this confession an involuntary one except by substituting its presumption in place of analysis of the evidence renee, . Ashcraft et al. vs. State of Tennessee. 7 and refusing to weigh the evidence even in rebuttal of its pre- iitvwr->77'" anes aeateereermeneee eae marimame ““Xs"t most such cases, we start with some admitted facts. In the early morning Mrs. Asheraft left her home in an automobile to visit relatives. She was found murdered. She had not been robbed nor ravished, although an effort had been made to give the crime an appearance of robbery. The officers knew of no other motive for the killing and naturally turned to her husband for information. On the afternoon of the crime, Thursday, June 5, 1941, they took Ashcraft to the morgue to identify the body, and to the county jail, where he was kept and interviewed until 2:00 a.m. He makes no complaint of his treatment at this time. In this and severa) later interviews he made a number of statements with reference to the condition of the car, and as to Mrs. Asheraft’s having taken a certain drug, and as to money which she was ‘accustomed to carry on her person, which further investigation indicated te be untrue. Still Asheraft was not arrested. He professed to be willing to assist in identifying the killer. At last, on Saturday evening, June 14, an officer brought Asheraft to the jail for further questioning. He was taken to a room on the fifth floor aud questioned intermittently by several officers over a period of about thirty-six hours. There are two versions as to what happened during this period of questioning. According to the version of the officers, which was accepted by the eourt which saw the Witnesses, what happenedt On Saturday evening Ashcraft was taken to the jail, where he was questioned by Mr. Becker and Mr. Battle. Becker is in the Intel- ligence Service of the United States Army at the present time and before that was in charge of the Homicide Bureau of the Sheriff's office of Shelby County, Tennessee. Battle has for eight years been an Assistant Attorney General of the County. They began ques- tioning Asheraft about 7:00 pm. They recounted various state- ments of his which had proved untrue. About 11:00 o’clock Ash- eraft said he realized the circumstances all pointed to him and that he could not explain the circumstances. They then aceused him of the murder, but he denied it. About 3:00 a.m. Becker and Battle retired and left Asheraft in charge of Ezzell, a special investi- gator connected with the Attorney General’s office. He questioned