LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA
314 U.S. 219 (1941)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a conviction of death.
FACTS: James (D) conceived of a plan of marrying and insuring his wife's life by policies
providing double indemnity and then killing her in a manner to appear as an accident and
then to collect his double down money. D targeted Busch and a month later, he married her in
a ceremony that was not legal as D was still married to his wife. The marriage with his wife
was annulled and a lawful ceremony was performed. The insurance was placed on Busch when
they were affianced. Then D enlisted Hope (D1) to do away with her and collect and divide
the insurance money. D told D1 to get rattlesnakes but they were not lethal enough and D1
eventually purchased others and delivered them to D. D then blindfolded his wife, tied her
to a table, had D1 bring the snakes into the room and caused them to bite her on the foot.
The bite did not have the desired effect and D told D1 that he would drown his wife. D1
helped D carry the body to the backyard pond and placed it face down with head and shoulders
in the water. Two friends were brought back to the house and they found the murdered wife in
the position indicated. The autopsy showed the lungs were almost filled with water; the
great toe showed a puncture and the left leg was swollen and almost black. Nothing came of
the investigation into the death. The insurance company refused to pay but D sued them but
that ignited a fresh investigation. D was then arrested for the crime of incest and made
statements respecting his wife's death. D claimed that after he was booked for the incest
charge, he was beaten, and questioned without let up for a number of days. During the next
few days, he made no incriminating statement but was told by his attorney that he should not
talk to anyone without him being present. Hope was arrested on May 1 and D was taken away
for more questioning. During this round, he was denied the presence of counsel. Eventually
after an all-day session, an officer and D were left alone and D claims that he was
threatened. After which in the presence of other interrogators, D confessed. D blamed D1 for
the murder and claimed that it was D1's idea. During trial, the circumstantial evidence was
mounting as it was proven how D1 participated and the snakes that were sold to D1 were found
and identified. D's statements were offered into evidence. Objection was made in that they
were not voluntary. The trial court ruled them as admissible. The State also offered
evidence with respect to the death of a former wife of D in 1932. Her death with that of
another man in a bathtub and the collection of double indemnity and that marriage and death
a few months later made things look really bad for D. The trial judge ruled the confession
voluntary but issued a jury instruction that stated if the confession were not voluntary,
they were to be disregarded. D was convicted and appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment