Arizona v. Fulminante

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arizona v. Fulminante
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 10, 1990
Decided March 26, 1991
Full case name: Arizona v. Fulminante
Citations: 499 U.S. 279
Prior history: 161 Ariz. 237, 778 P.2d 602
Holding
The harmless error rule is applicable to the admission of involuntary confessions. Violations of this rule are grounds for granting the defendant a new trial.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter
Case opinions
Majority by: White (Parts I, II, and IV)
Joined by: Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia (Parts I and II only), Kennedy (Parts I and IV only)
Majority by: Rehnquist (Part II)
Joined by: O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
Concurrence by: Kennedy (concurring in the court's judgement)
Dissent by: White (Part III)
Joined by: Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent by: Rehnquist (Parts I and III)
Joined by: O'Connor, Scalia (Part III only), Kennedy and Souter (Part I only)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V and XIV

Arizona v. Fulminante 499 U.S. 279 (1991) was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the standard of review of a criminal defendant's allegedly coerced confession.

In 1982, the 11-year-old stepdaughter of one Oreste Fulminante was murdered in Arizona. Later, Fulminante was incarcerated for an unrelated crime. While in prison, Fulminante met Anthony Sarivola, a fellow inmate, who was also a confidential informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sarivola offered Fulminante protection from "tough treatment" in prison in exchange for a confession to the murder of Fulminante's stepdaughter. Fulminante agreed, confessing to Sarivola that he murdered his stepdaughter. As a result, Fulminante was charged with the murder, and his confession to Sarivola was used against him at trial.

The trial court denied Fulminante's motion to suppress the confession on the basis that it was coerced because Fulminante might have been subject to violence in prison had he not confessed. Fulminante was convicted and sentenced to death, and appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which held that the confession was indeed coerced. Reasoning that a harmless error analysis was inappropriate in the case of involuntary confessions, the court nonetheless ordered a new trial.

In a divided opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the state supreme court's finding that Fulminante might have been subjected to violence was sufficient to establish a finding of coercion, and therefore affirmed the reversal. In addition, the Court held that a harmless error analysis should nonetheless be applied to any allegedly coerced confession. In either case, the Court held that a new trial was warranted.

[edit] See also

[edit] Further reading

  • Cenicola, J. (1992). "Arizona v. Fulminante: Accusation of Inquisition". New England Law Review 27: 383. 
  • Ganong, Elizabeth A. (1991). "Involuntary Confessions and the Jailhouse Informant: An Examination of Arizona v. Fulminante". Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 19: 911. 
  • Kassin, Saul M.; Neumann, Katherine (1997). "On the Power of Confession Evidence: An Experimental Test of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis". Law and Human Behavior 21 (5): 469–484. doi:10.1023/A:1024871622490. 
  • Ogletree, Charles J., Jr. (1991). "Arizona v. Fulminante: The Harm of Applying Harmless Error to Coerced Confessions". Harvard Law Review 105: 152. 

[edit] External links