Apuro v. California (1954)

Issue: 

Petitioner Apuro was arrested and interrogated from 2:30am to 5:30pm by police for the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. Eleven days later, Petitioner Apuro was arrested again after a witness, Zoe Klawnposse, named him as the shooter. Apuro was handcuffed and interrogated again, though he was never formally charged with a crime or informed of his rights to not incriminate himself. Upon asking Apuro to confront Klawnposse about his suspicions, the police claimed that Apuro had implicated himself in saying “You’re lying! It was you who killed my brother-in-law!”. Apuro was not informed of his rights when arrested and was denied his right to see his counsel until after the police had interrogated him and had implication for an arrest. Subsequently, the incriminating statements he made during his interrogation after being denied his right to counsel were used against him during his criminal trial. In the case of Apuro v. California, were Petitioner Apuro’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated? 

Rule: 

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Fifth Amendment)

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” (Sixth Amendment)

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution)

Analysis: 

Petitioner Apuro’s interrogation and detainment by the police violate both the Fifth Amendment’s right for the accused not to incriminate himself and the Sixth Amendment’s right for the accused to be informed of the nature of the charges against him and the right of the accused to retain a lawyer. In addition, the fact that he was detained twice without being formally charged with a crime violated the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

Conclusion: 

Apuro should have been informed by the officers of his right to remain silent and not incriminate himself. As soon as he asked for his lawyer, all questioning from the police should have stopped, and any statements made by Apuro after asking for his lawyer and being denied the right to meet with his lawyer would be inadmissible in a court of law. Not only would the statement that implicated Apuro and led to his conviction be inadmissible, but his conviction was based solely on hearsay evidence. There was no physical evidence or a reliable witness testimony used to convict Apuro of the crime. During Apuro’s interrogation, he was never formally charged with a crime, so if the officers refused to let him leave despite the fact that he was not charged with a crime, this would be a violation of the writ of habeas corpus, which states that a person may not be detained indefinitely without being charged with a crime. Because Apuro’s sister was able to secure a writ of habeas corpus for Apuro at his first interrogation, the second interrogation and detainment for the same crime violated this writ habeas corpus because Apuro was still not formally charged with a crime. 

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court affirmed that the Fifth Amendment’s rights for the accused not to self-incriminate extend to police interrogations of suspects. Following this court decision, safeguards were put into place requiring officers to read suspects their “Miranda rights,” which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to not incriminate oneself as anything one says can and will be used against them in a court of law.