◆ SpookStack

ca ee RA Ne hy ea eh a 8 Ashcraft et al. vs. State of Tennessee. Asheraft and discussed the crime with him until about 7-VO on Sunday morning. Becker and Battle then returned and inter- viewed him intermittently until about noon, when Ezzei] returned and remained until about 5:00. eeker then returned, and about 11:00 o'clock Sunday night Asheraft expressed a desire to talk with Ezzell. Ezzell was sent for and Asheraft told him he wanted to tel him the truth, He said, ‘‘Mr. Ezzell, a Negro killed my wife.’’ Ezzell asked the Negro’s name, and Ashcraft said, “Tom rare.’' Up to this time Ware had not been suspected, nor had ps name been mentioned. Asheraft explained that he did not tell the officers before because ‘1 was scared; the negro said he would burn my house down if I told the law.’ Thereupon Becker, Battle, Ezzell, and Mr. Jayroe, connected with the Sheriff's office, took Ashcraft in a car and found Ware. When questioned at the jail, Ware turned te Asheraft and said in substance that he had told Asheraft when this thing happened that he did not intend to take the entire blame, The officers there- upon turned their attention to Ware. He promptly admitted the killing and said Ashcraft hired him to do it. Waldauer, the court reporter, waa called to take down this confession, and completed his transeript at about 6:40 am. He read it to Ware and told him he did not have to sign it unless he so chose. Ware made his mark upon it and swore to it before Waldauer ag a Notary Public. A copy was given to Asheraft, and he then admitted that he had hired Ware to kill his wife, He was given breakfast and then in response to questiony made a statement which was taken down by the court reporier, Waldauer. It was transeribed, but ‘Asberaft declined to aign it, saying that he wanted his lawyer to see it before he signed it, No Se te to sign the confession. However, two business men of emphis, Tr. Castle, vicé ent of a bank, and Mr. Pidgeon, president got the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, were called in. Both teati- fied that Aaheraft in their presence asserted that the transeript was correct but that he declined to sign it. The officers also called Dr. McQuiston to the jail to make a physical examination of both Ashcraft and Ware. He had practiced medicine in Memphis for twenty-eight years and both Mr. and Mrs. Ashcraft had been his patients for something like five years. In the presence of this fri.ndly doetor Asheraft might have eomplained of his treatment and avowed his innocence. The doctor testified, however, that Ash- om Ashcraft ef al. vs. State of Tennessee. 9 craft said be had been treated ali riglit, that he made no com- plaint about his eyes, and that they were not bloodshot. The doctor made a physical examination, and says Ashcraft appeared normal. He further testified as to Ashcraft, ‘‘ Well, sir, he said he had not been able to get along with his wife for aame time: that her health had been bad; that he had offered her a property settle- ment and that she might go her way and he his way; and he aleo stated that he offered thia colored man, Ware, a sum of money to make away with his wife.’"' The doctor says that that statement was entirely voluntary. No matter what pressure had been put on Asheraft before, the courts below could reasonably believe that { he made this statement yoluntarily to a man of whom he had no fear and who knew bis family relationa. Asheraft’s story of torture could only be accepted hy digheliey- ing such credible and ynimpeached contradiction. Asheraft testi- fied that he was refused food, was not allowed to go to the lavatory, and was denied even # drink of water. Other testimony is that on Saturday night he was brought a sandwich and coffee about midnight; that he drank the coffee but refused the sandwich; that an Sunday morning he was given a breakfast and was fed again about noon a plate |anch consisting of meat and vegetables and coffee, Both Waldauer, the Reporter, and Dr. MeQuiston testi- \ fied that they saw breakfast served to Ashcraft the next morning, before the statement taken down by Waldauer. -Asheraft claims he was threatened and that a cigarette was slapped out of his mouth. This ia all denied. This Court rejects the testimony of the officeya and disinterested witnesses in this case that the confession wag voluntary not be- cause it lacked probative value in itself nor because the witnesses were self-contradietory or were impeached. Qn the contrary, it is impugned only on grounds such as that such disputes ‘‘are an inescapable consequence of secret inquisitorial practic: '' We infer from this that since a prisoner's unsupported word often conflicts with that of the officers, the officer's testimony for eon- stitutional purposes is always prima facie false. We know that [Police standards often leave much to be desired, but wa are not } . ee 1 The officers had been baffled as to any motive for Asheraft tw murder his wife (who wus his third, two former ones having been sepatated from him by divoree). He disclosed in his confession to them that her sicknosg had Te- sulted in a degree of irritability whieh had made them incompatible and resulted in hia sexual frustration. ee,