Colorado v. Connelly
United States Supreme Court
479 U.S. 157 (1986) |
Two parties involved :
Petitioner
|
United States Supreme Court
479 U.S. 157 (1986) |
Two parties involved :
Petitioner
|
Facts of the case
A Supreme Court ruled that a mentally ill man's confession could stand because the suspect was not forced, so his rights were not violated. A lower court ruled that his confession could not stand since his illness prevented him from understanding the Miranda Rights ("LexisNexis"). |
Issues
Whether mental illness makes somebody's confession invalid ("LexisNexis"). |
Holding/Rational
(Rehnquist, C.J.) According to the court, there was not a violation of the Due Process Clause because the taking of Connelly's statements for evidence did not involve government coercion. When a confession is coerce than it is made involuntarily, but voluntarily taking a respondent's statement into evidence, does not violate the clause. "The court held that the evidence supported a finding that Connelly's initial statements were not the product of rational judgment and free choice (Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 519). |
Dissenting Opinion
(Brennan, J.) The confessions of a mentally ill individual violates the Due Process Clause. The court ruling denied the free will of the due process, while also making voluntary confessions from mentally ill people or coercion by others "voluntary" under the Due Process Clause. Connelly was off his medications when he confessed while also having a long history of severe mental illness ("LexisNexis"). |