Facts of Case: On April 10,1985 two officers called Williams (respondent), stating that he needs to come down to the police station for questioning about a double murder that occurred on April 6, 1985. Williams was driven to the police station by the two officers, (he was not arrested). Once at the station, the officers began questioning Williams about the crime that committed. William began to go in-depth about what took place with the crime, and even made a statement that he provided the murder weapon, but he was not present, stating the killer called him telling where the weapon and other items was discarded.
After about 40 minutes, the two officers advised Williams of the Miranda Warning, which he waive the rights and continue to incriminate himself. The officers interrogated Williams again on April 11th, and 12th; the defendant Williams admitted his involvement, by stating he was there, saw the murder and he was the driver as well. The State charged Williams with two counts of first degree murder.
Contentions of the Parties: William filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal …show more content…
The expenses of applying the exclusionary principle on habeas were nearly incredible. We contemplated that doing as such would not just reject solid proof and occupy consideration from the focal inquiry of blame, however would likewise interfere with general society interest.
Rule of Law: The Court of Appeals affirmed the District’s Court ruling. Reference:
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 680, 113 S. Ct. 1745, 1747, 123 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d
After about 40 minutes, the two officers advised Williams of the Miranda Warning, which he waive the rights and continue to incriminate himself. The officers interrogated Williams again on April 11th, and 12th; the defendant Williams admitted his involvement, by stating he was there, saw the murder and he was the driver as well. The State charged Williams with two counts of first degree murder.
Contentions of the Parties: William filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal …show more content…
The expenses of applying the exclusionary principle on habeas were nearly incredible. We contemplated that doing as such would not just reject solid proof and occupy consideration from the focal inquiry of blame, however would likewise interfere with general society interest.
Rule of Law: The Court of Appeals affirmed the District’s Court ruling. Reference:
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 680, 113 S. Ct. 1745, 1747, 123 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d