Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Crooker v. California — Opinion of the Court

We turn now to the contention that even if the confession be voluntary, its use violates due process because it was obtained after denial of petitioner's request to contact his attorney. Petitioner reaches this position by reasoning first that he has been denied a due process right to representation and advice from his attorney, [4] and secondly that the use of any confession obtained from him during the time of such a denial would itself be barred by the Due Process Clause, even though freely made. We think petitioner fails to sustain the first point, and therefore we do not reach the second.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Crooker v. California — Opinion of the Court

He would have every state denial of a request to contact counsel be an infringement of the constitutional right without regard to the circumstances of the case. In the absence of any confession, plea or waiver-or other event prejudicial to the accused-such a doctrine would create a complete anomaly, since nothing would remain that could be corrected on new trial Refusal by state authorities of the request to contact counsel necessarily would then be an absolute bar to conviction.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature