|
Abstract
| Argument: |
Wednesday, January 18, 1984
|
| Decision: |
Monday, June 11, 1984 |
| Issues: |
Criminal Procedure, Right to Counsel |
|
Advocates
| Brent R. Appel |
(Argued the cause for the petitioner) |
| Robert Bartels |
(By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent) |
| Kathryn A. Oberly |
(Rgued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal) |
|
Facts of the Case
Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest.
Question
Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained?
Conclusion
No. The Court relied on the "inevitable discovery doctrine," as it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements.
