WALTON
v.
ARKANSAS

U.S. | 1962-10-22
Nos. 18, Misc.
371 U.S. 28 Supreme Court of the United States (1962) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 9 L. Ed. 2d 9 · 83 S. Ct. 9 · 1962 U.S. LEXIS 337 · SCDB 1962-004
Cited by 14 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner's conviction was unconstitutional because he was not represented by counsel at his arraignment, and the record did not show he was advised of his right to counsel or intelligently waived it.

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which did not have the benefit of a subsequent Supreme Court decision regarding th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Involuntary Confession Waiver Of Right To Counsel Fourteenth Amendment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Involuntary Confession cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

In this capital case the Supreme Court of Arkansas sustained. petitioner’s conviction against the claim, among others, that in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States his involuntary confession of the crime was introduced in evidence at the trial. Walton v. State, 233 Ark. 999, 350 S. W. 2d 302. Petitioner contends that independently of this claim his conviction was unconstitutional because he was not represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment in the course of which he acknowledged the voluntariness of his confession, such acknowledgment being later used in evidence against him at the trial.

When the Arkansas Supreme Court decided this case it did not have the benefit of this Court’s decision in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, which was rendered subsequent to the state court’s decision and on the same day that it denied rehearing upon a petition filed prior to the announcement of the Hamilton case. Further, we are unable to conclude from the record filed in this Court either that petitioner had counsel at the time of the arraignment proceedings or, if not, that he was advised of his right to have counsel at such proceedings and that he understandingly and intelligently waived that right.

In these circumstances we conclude that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas should be vacated and the case remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, or for such other appropriate proceedings as may be available under state law for resolution of this constitutional claim.

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1964)
    …76 S.Ct. 223 (1956). See also Thomaston v. Gladden, 326 F. 2d 305, 307 (9th Cir. 1964) ; United States v. La Vallee, 318 F. 2d 499 (2d Cir. 1963). . See also White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963); Walton v. Arkansas, 371 U.S. 28, 83 S.Ct. 9, 9 L.Ed.2d 9 (1962); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1962). . Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U.S. 202, 84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 650 (1964); United States v. La Vallee, 330 F. 2d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 1964). See also…
  • Gatlin v. United States, 326 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
  • United States v. Carneglia, 468 F.2d 1084 (2d Cir. 1972)
    …ima facie evidence of guilt, may be of controlling weight unless explained by the circumstances or accounted for in some way consistent with innocence.” United States v. Minieri, 303 F. 2d 550, 554 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 847, 83 S.Ct. 79, 9 L.Ed.2d 9 (1962); United States v. Fried, 464 F. 2d 983, 985 (2d Cir. 1972).6 It is argued to us, as it was to the jury, that appellants were only innocently helping their friend Inzerillo with two balky trucks. Perhaps the jury might reasonably have accepted…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw