Editing Chambers v. Florida

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Chambers v. Florida
  |ArgueDate=January 4
  |ArgueYear=1940
  |DecideDate=February 12
  |DecideYear=1940
  |FullName=Chambers et al. v. State of Florida
  |USVol=309
  |USPage=227
  |ParallelCitations=60 S. Ct. 472; 84 [[L. Ed.]] 716; 1940 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 911
  |Prior=Conviction affirmed, ''Chambers v. State'', 136 [[Florida Supreme Court|Fla.]] [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3388037/chambers-v-state/ 568], 187 [[Southern Reporter|So.]] 156 (1939); [[certiorari|cert.]] granted, {{ussc|308|541|1939|el=no}}.
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Confessions compelled by police through duress are inadmissible at trial.
  |Majority=Black
  |JoinMajority=Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas
  |Concurrence=
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Concurrence2=
  |JoinConcurrence2=
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
  |Dissent=
  |JoinDissent=
  |Dissent2=
  |JoinDissent2=
  |NotParticipating=Murphy
  |LawsApplied=
}}
'''''Chambers v. Florida''''', 309 U.S. 227 (1940), was a landmark<ref>{{cite web |author1=Gilbert G. Garcia |author2=Hunter J. White |title=Anniversary of Chambers v. Florida: Confessions through Duress must be Suppressed |url=https://ggglawfirm.com/anniversary-chambers-v-florida-confessions-duress-must-suppressed/ |publisher=The Gilbert G. Garcia Law Firm |accessdate=July 20, 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200720081847/https://ggglawfirm.com/anniversary-chambers-v-florida-confessions-duress-must-suppressed/ |archivedate=July 20, 2020 |date=February 12, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Klarman |first1=Michael J. |title=Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement. Abridged Edition of "From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality" --> Chapter 3: ''Brown v. Board of Education'' |date=July 31, 2007 |location=New York|isbn=978-0-19-530763-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LEEMAWCU45oC&dq=Chambers+v.+Florida+landmark&pg=RA1-PA1858 |accessdate=July 20, 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200720181302/https://books.google.com/books?id=LEEMAWCU45oC&pg=RA1-PA1858&lpg=RA1-PA1858&dq=Chambers+v.+Florida+landmark |archivedate=July 20, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[United States Supreme Court]] case that dealt with the extent to which police pressure resulting in a criminal defendant's confession violates the [[Due Process Clause]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Chambers v. Florida|volume=309|page=227|pin=|year=1940}}.</ref>

==Case ==
The case was argued on January 6, 1940, in front of the court by S.D. McGill, a Black civil rights attorney involved with the [[NAACP|National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]], representing four black men convicted for the murder of a white man in [[Florida]]. McGill, joined by Leon A. Ransom of the [[NAACP]] National Legal Committee, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. [[Thurgood Marshall]], special counsel for the NAACP, appeared on the defendants’ brief but did not participate in the courtroom arguments.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetailpre1989.aspx?caseid=423#:~:text=On%20the%20night%20of%20May,interrogated%20them%20about%20the%20murder | title=Walter Woodward - National Registry of Exonerations Pre 1989 }}</ref> 

The defendant Chambers, along with three other co-defendants, were four of up to forty transient black men arrested for the murder of Robert Darcy, an elderly local man, in [[Pompano Beach, Florida]]. The community was outraged by the murder, and the [[Broward County]] Sheriff's department was apparently under pressure to close the case. Chambers and the other defendants were taken to [[Miami]] for questioning, ostensibly to protect them from the mob that had formed, and then to [[Fort Lauderdale]].

The state did not contest that the defendants were held without access to legal counsel, and were not [[arraigned]] for a week. They were subjected to questioning on a random basis, often alone in a room with up to ten police officers and other members of the community. In the legal climate before ''[[Miranda v. Arizona|Miranda]]'', they were not informed of their right to remain silent. After a week of questioning, and despite previous denials, the four co-defendants eventually confessed to the crime and were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Their convictions were affirmed by the [[Supreme Court of Florida]].<ref>''Chambers v. State'', 136 [[Florida Supreme Court|Fla.]] [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3388037/chambers-v-state/ 568], 187 [[Southern Reporter|So.]] 156 (1939).</ref>

==Decision==
On February 13, 1940, the court delivered its ruling. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice [[Hugo Black]] of [[Alabama]].

This was Marshall's first<ref>{{cite web |title=Thurgood Marshall Biography (1908–1993) |url=https://www.biography.com/law-figure/thurgood-marshall |website=The Biography.com website |publisher=A&E Television Networks |access-date=January 22, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210120044213/https://www.biography.com/law-figure/thurgood-marshall |archive-date=January 20, 2021 |date=January 11, 2021}}</ref> of many triumphs in front of the nation's highest tribunal; the Court ruled in favor of the defendants, and overturned their convictions. The court found that on the facts admitted by the police and sheriff's officers, the confessions had clearly been compelled and were therefore inadmissible. It marked one of the first times that the court had accepted the contention that treatment short of physical violence should result in the suppression of evidence.

Several of the features of this case, such as not allowing defendants to contact anyone, holding them without formal charges or arraignment, and denying them counsel during questioning were common tactics{{where|date=July 2019}} in law enforcement at the time{{citation needed|date=July 2019}} and were eventually rejected by the court in ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'' (1966), a case in which Marshall argued on behalf of the United States government as [[Solicitor General of the United States]].<ref>See appearances of counsel listing in Miranda decision.</ref>

==Aftermath==
In subsequent proceedings before the Florida courts, the indictment against the defendants was quashed on the ground that blacks had been arbitrarily and intentionally excluded from the grand jury.<ref>''Williamson v. Baker'', [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3404317/williamson-v-baker/ 148 Fla. 387], 388-389, 4 So. 2d 471, 471-472 (1941) (discussing the ''Chambers'' case).</ref>

==See also==
* ''[[Brown v. Mississippi]]'' (1936)
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* {{wikisource-inline}}
* {{caselaw source
 | case = ''Chambers v. Florida'', {{ussc|309|227|1940|el=no}}
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/309/227
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/103301/chambers-v-florida/
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6204291173885326093
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/309/227/case.html
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep309/usrep309227/usrep309227.pdf
 }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chambers V. Florida}}
[[Category:1940 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Civil rights movement case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court]]
[[Category:United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law]]
[[Category:Pompano Beach, Florida]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]