Draft:North Carolina v. Butler
 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Jlvshistory (talk | contribs) 5 months ago. (Update) |
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 US 369 (1979) is a landmark decision of Supreme Court of the United States held that defendant's self-incriminating testimony is not inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights. The court held that Miranda rights are not required to adopt a flexible per se rule. 10 of 11 the United States courts of appeals ruled that express waiver is not necessary.[1]
| North Carolina v. Butler | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 27, 1979 Decided April 24, 1979 | |
| Full case name | North Carolina v. Willie Thomas Butler |
| Citations | 441 U.S. 369 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | State v. Butler, 244 S.E.2d (1978), 295 N.C. 250, No. 87; Writ of Cert. to the Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Questions presented | |
| Is a defendant’s self-incriminating testimony inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights? | |
| Holding | |
| An explicit statement of waiver is not invariably necessary to support a finding that the defendant waived the right to counsel guaranteed by the Miranda case. The question of waiver must be determined on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, and there is no reason in a case such as this for a per se rule, such as that of the North Carolina Supreme Court. By creating an inflexible rule that no implicit waiver can ever suffice, that court has gone beyond the requirements of federal organic law, and thus its judgment cannot stand, since a state court can neither add to nor subtract from the mandates of the United States Constitution | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by White, Blackmun, Burger, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Stevens |
| Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
The court added that the question of waiver must be determined according to particular facts and circumstances of the case. The court also criticized the Supreme Court of North Carolina for going beyond of the requirements of the federal organic law by creating a "flexible rule" that has no implicit waiver can ever suffice. The court concluded that a state court can neither add or subtract from the mandate of the Constitution of the United States.[2]
Background
[edit]In December 1976, Willie Thomas Butler and his companion, Elmer Lee robbed a gas station in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Butler shot a station attendee, cause him to become paralyzed, as they were trying to escape. Both the men fled to The Bronx, New York when they got arrested by the FBI agents on a basis of a fugitive warrant. After his arrest, the agents took Butler into FBI office in New Rochelle, New York. During interrogation, the officer gave him the "Advice of Rights" to signify that the respondent understood his rights. Butler refused to sign the waiver, Butler also told the officer that he will not sign any waiver but he would like to talk to the officer. Butler didn't ask for attorney and proceeded to make self-incriminating statements which was used as evidence at the trial.[3] At the trial, Butler moved to supress the evidence but the court denied the motion, arguing that Butler had effectively waived his rights to an attorny when he spoke to the FBI agent after saying that he understood his rights. The jury found him guilty of kidnapping, armed robbery, and felonious assault. Butler appealed his case to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered a new trial, holding that statements that made under interrogations were inadmissible without an express waiver of rights.[4]
References
[edit]- ^ "North Carolina v. Butler". Oyez.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
- ^ "North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979)". Justia Law. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
- ^ Calvi & Coleman 2016.
- ^ Kennelly 1979, p. 260.
Further Works
[edit]- Kennelly, Jack (1979). "Failure to Request Counsel; Waiver - Miranda Per Se Exclusion of Confessions Obtained in Absence of Counsel No Longer Applicable: Waiver of Counsel Determined on Basis of Totality of Circumstances". North Dakota Law Review. 56: 260 – via Google Scholar.
- Calvi, James V.; Coleman, Susan (16 September 2016). American Law and Legal Systems. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317225515.